Commercial and Industrial Network Improvement and Programming Policy, Summary, 1991

The Commercial and Industrial Network improvement and programming policy reflected in this summary report was adopted for use in future highway programming by the Transportation Commission on November 5, 1991. The Iowa Department of Transportation, as directed by the Legislature, has established a 2,331-mile network of commercial and industrial highways and is directing a significant amount of primary construction funding resources toward improvements to this network. This summary outlines the technical needs assessment for improvements on the Commercial and Industrial Network for the next 20-year period. The portions of the network which require four-lane capacity, as well as major improvements to the two-lane sections, are graphically displayed. Detailed improvement needs and costs are listed in tabular form for the first two five-year periods (1992-1996 and 1997-2001). It is essential to note that these improvement needs are the result of a technical assessment and do not imply any funding commitment.

Report on a review of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Program and the Elevator and Escalator Safety Program administered by Iowa Workforce Development for the period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2010

Report on a review of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Program and the Elevator and Escalator Safety Program administered by Iowa Workforce Development for the period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2010

Water planning law and government.

Water planning efforts typically identify problems and needs. But simply calling attention to issues is usually not enough to spur action; the end result of many well-intentioned planning efforts is a report that ends up gathering dust on a shelf. Vague recommendations like “Water conservation measures should be implemented” usually accomplish little by themselves as they don’t assign responsibility to anyone. Success is more likely when an implementation strategy — who can and should do what — is developed as part of the planning process. The more detailed and specific the implementation strategy, the greater the chance that something will actually be done. The question then becomes who has the legal authority or responsibility to do what? Are new laws and programs needed or can existing ones be used to implement the recommendations? ... This document is divided into four main parts. The first, “Carrots and Sticks” looks at two basic approaches — regulatory and non-regulatory — that can be, and are, used to carry out water policy. Both have advantages and disadvantages that need to be considered. The second, “The powers of federal, state and local governments…,” looks at the constitutional powers the federal government and state and local governments have to carry out water policy. An initial look at the U. S. Constitution might suggest the federal government’s regulatory authority over water is limited but, in fact, its powers are very substantial. States have considerable authority to do a number of things but have to be mindful of any federal efforts that might conflict with those state efforts. And local governments can only do those things the state constitution or state legislature says they can do and must conform to any requirements or limitations on those powers that are contained in the enabling acts. Parts three and four examine in more detail the main programs and agencies at the federal level as well as Iowa’s state and local levels and the roles they play in national and state water policy.

Water Planning Law and Government, November 2008

Water planning efforts typically identify problems and needs. But simply calling attention to issues is usually not enough to spur action; the end result of many well-intentioned planning efforts is a report that ends up gathering dust on a shelf. Vague recommendations like “Water conservation measures should be implemented” usually accomplish little by themselves as they don’t assign responsibility to anyone. Success is more likely when an implementation strategy — who can and should do what — is developed as part of the planning process. The more detailed and specific the implementation strategy, the greater the chance that something will actually be done.

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.

Review of Automated Vehicle Technology: Policy and Implementation Implications; Version 1.0; RB28-015, 2016

This report provides recommendations for the state of Iowa over the next five years in regards to automated vehicle policy development. These administrative, planning, legal, and community strategy recommendations for government agencies include: • Encouraging automation by preparing government agencies, infrastructure, leveraging procurement, and advocating for safety mandates • Adjusting long range planning processes by identifying and incorporating a wide range of new automation scenarios • Beginning to analyze and, as necessary, clarify existing law as it apples to automated driving • Auditing existing law • Enforcing existing laws • Ensuring vehicle owners and operators bear the true cost of driving • Embracing flexibility by giving agencies the statutory authority to achieve regulatory goals through different means, allowing them to make small-scale exemptions to statutory regimes and clarifying their enforcement discretion • Thinking locally and preparing publicly • Sharing the steps being taken to promote (as well as to anticipate and regulate) automated driving • Instituting public education about automated vehicle technologies.

Report on a special investigation of the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University, for the period April 1, 2009 through December 15, 2015

Report on a special investigation of the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University, for the period April 1, 2009 through December 15, 2015

Optimum Enforcement Level for Traffic Weight Operations, HR-138, Appendices, 1968

Appendices for HR-138.

Iowa Study of No Passing Zone Signing, 1962

This report is compiled from data gathered by interviewing motorists to sample their opinion of Iowa's method of supplementing the yellow barrier line pavement marking of no passing zones on primary highways with yellow pennant shaped "No Passing Zone" signs mounted on the left shoulder of the highway. The effective designation of no passing zones is one form of control that can contribute to a reduction in the number of fatal high-speed head-on collisions resulting from passing in areas which do not afford sufficient sight distance of approaching traffic. It is the purpose of this report to present an evaluation of the Iowa "No Passing Zone" sign by individuals from all states who have traveled on Iowa's primary highways and who must obey the no passing zone restrictions and be warned by this sign of the presence of the zones. The "No Passing Zone" sign was formulated and approved by the Governor's Safety Committee a short time prior to the experimental erection of the signs. The Governor's Safety Committee adopted this sign as they felt that such a sign should be distinctive (not similar to any other type of sign) and easily visible to a driver attempting a passing maneuver.

A Comparative Policy Analysis of Seat Belt Laws, RB37-013, 2014

This analysis examined data from a variety of sources to estimate the benefit of enhancing Iowa’s current law to require all passengers to use seat belts. In addition to assessing Iowans’ opinions about changing the law, a literature review, a legislative policy review, and analysis of Iowa crash data were completed. Currently 28 states enforce seat belt laws for all passengers. Belted passengers riding with an unbelted passenger are 2 to 5 times more likely to suffer fatal injuries in a crash relative to when all occupants are using seat belts. Iowans are highly compliant (90%-94%) with the current seat belt law for front seat occupants. Of more than 1000 Iowans surveyed, 85% said they always use a seat belt when riding in the front seat, but only 36% always do so when they ride in the back seat. The most common reasons given for not using seat belts in the back seat are forgetting to buckle up and because it is not the law. Iowans widely support strengthening Iowa’s seat belt law — 62% said Iowa law should require all rear seat passengers to use seat belts. Four out of five respondents said they would use seat belts more often when sitting in the rear seat if it was the law. It is estimated rear seat fatalities would decrease about 48%, from 13 to 7 fatalities annually, if an all-passenger law was implemented in Iowa.