2010- 2014 Iowa Transportation Improvement Program

The Iowa Transportation Improvement Program (Program) is published to inform Iowans of planned investments in our state’s transportation system. The Iowa Transportation Commission (Commission) and Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) are committed to programming those investments in a fiscally responsible manner. A major component of the 2010-2014 Program is the full integration of funding allocated to the Iowa DOT from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). To date, the Recovery Act has provided over $400 million of additional federal funding for transportation in Iowa, including funding that is allocated to local governments and entities. Recovery Act funding will result in a record year for transportation construction in Iowa and the creation and retention of jobs. Opportunities for additionalRecovery Act transportation funding remain and will be pursued as they becomeavailable. While Recovery Act funding will make a one-time significant impact in addressing Iowa’s backlog of needs, it is important to note that there remains a large shortfall in sustained annual transportation investment to meet Iowa’s current and future critical transportation needs. In recognition of this shortfall, Governor Culver introduced and the legislature passed an I-JOBS proposal. I-JOBS will result in an additional $50 million of state funding to reduce structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges on the primary road system and approximately $10 million in funding for other modes of transportation including $3 million of new funding to support the expansion of passenger rail service in Iowa. I-JOBS, and the continuing gradual increase in funding due to TIME-21, will complement and extend the benefits of Recovery Act funding and set the stage for addressing the shortfall in annual funding in the next few years. Iowa’s transportation system is multi-modal; therefore, the Program encompasses investments in aviation, transit, railroads, trails, and highways. A major component of the Program is the highway section. The FY2010-2014 highway section is financially balanced and was developed to achieve several objectives. The Commission’s primary highway investment objective is stewardship (i.e. safety, maintenance and preservation) of Iowa’s existing highway system. The highway section includes an annual average of $104 million for preserving the interstate system; an annual average of $78 million for non-interstate pavement preservation; an annual average of $36 million for non-interstate bridges; and an annual average of $14 million for safety projects. Another objective is to maintain the scheduled completion of interstate and non-interstate capacity and economic development projects that were identified in the previous Program and this Program does so. The final Commission objective is to further address capacity and economic development needs and the Commission has done so by adding several such projects to the Program. Construction improvements are partially funded through the current federal transportation act, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The act will expire September 30, 2009. With the expiration of SAFETEA-LU, there is significant uncertainty in the forecast of federal revenues in the out-years of this Program. The Commission and Iowa DOT will monitor federal actions closely and make adjustments to the Program as necessary. The Iowa DOT and Commission appreciate the public’s involvement in the state’s transportation planning process. Comments received personally, by letter, or through participation in the Commission’s regular meetings or public input meetings held around the state each year are invaluable in providing guidance for the future of Iowa’s transportation system. It should be noted that this document is a planning guide. It does not represent a binding commitment or obligation of the Commission or Iowa DOT, and is subject to change. You are invited to visit the Iowa DOT’s Web site at iowadot.gov for additional and regular updates about the department’s programs and activities.

Task 6: Material Thermal Input for Iowa Materials, May 2008

The present research project was designed to determine thermal properties, such as coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and thermal conductivity, of Iowa concrete pavement materials. These properties are required as input values by the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG). In this project, a literature review was conducted to determine the factors that affect thermal properties of concrete and the existing prediction equations for CTE and thermal conductivity of concrete. CTE tests were performed on various lab and field samples of portland cement concrete (PCC) at the Iowa Department of Transportation and Iowa State University. The variations due to the test procedure, the equipment used, and the consistency of field batch materials were evaluated. The test results showed that the CTE variations due to test procedure and batch consistency were less than 5%, and the variation due to the different equipment was less than 15%. Concrete CTE values were significantly affected by different types of coarse aggregate. The CTE values of Iowa concrete made with limestone+graval, quartzite, dolomite, limestone+dolomite, and limestone were 7.27, 6.86, 6.68, 5.83, and 5.69 microstrain/oF (13.08, 12.35, 12.03, 10.50, and 10.25 microstrain/oC), respectively, which were all higher than the default value of 5.50 microstrain/oF in the MEPDG program. The thermal conductivity of a typical Iowa PCC mix and an asphalt cement concrete (ACC) mix (both with limestone as coarse aggregate) were tested at Concrete Technology Laboratory in Skokie, Illinois. The thermal conductivity was 0.77 Btu/hr•ft•oF (1.33 W/m•K) for PCC and 1.21 Btu/hr•ft•oF (2.09 W/m•K) for ACC, which are different from the default values (1.25 Btu/hr•ft•oF or 2.16 W/m•K for PCC and 0.67 Btu/hr•ft•oF or 1.16 W/m•K for ACC) in the MEPDG program. The investigations onto the CTE of ACC and the effects of concrete materials (such as cementitious material and aggregate types) and mix proportions on concrete thermal conductivity are recommended to be considered in future studies.

MEPDG Work Plan Task No. 7: Existing Pavement Input Information for the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide, 2009

The objective of this study is to systematically evaluate the Iowa Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) existing Pavement Management Information System (PMIS) with respect to the input information required for Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) rehabilitation analysis and design. To accomplish this objective, all of available PMIS data for interstate and primary roads in Iowa were retrieved from the Iowa DOT PMIS. The retrieved data were evaluated with respect to the input requirements and outputs for the latest version of the MEPDG software (version 1.0). The input parameters that are required for MEPDG HMA rehabilitation design, but currently unavailable in the Iowa DOT PMIS were identified. The differences in the specific measurement metrics used and their units for some of the pavement performance measures between the Iowa DOT PMIS and MEPDG were identified and discussed. Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that the Iowa DOT PMIS should be updated, if possible, to include the identified parameters that are currently unavailable, but are required for MEPDG rehabilitation design. Similarly, the measurement units of distress survey results in the Iowa DOT PMIS should be revised to correspond to those of MEPDG performance predictions. *******************Large File**************************

Taxing Sweets: Sweetener Input Tax or Final Consumption Tax?

In order to reduce obesity and associated costs, policymakers are considering various policies, including taxes, to change consumers high-calorie consumption habits. We investigate two tax policies aimed at reducing added sweetener consumption. Both a consumption tax on sweet goods and a sweetener input tax can reach the same policy target of reducing added sweetener consumption. Both tax instruments are regressive, but the associated surplus losses are limited. The tax on sweetener inputs targets sweeteners directly and causes about five times less surplus loss than the final consumption tax. Previous analyses have overlooked this important point.