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.

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.

Development of a Traffic Control Devices and Pavement Markings Manual for Iowa's Cities and Counties with a Survery of Common Practices, April 2001

Transportation agencies in Iowa are responsible for a significant public investment with the installation and maintenance of traffic control devices and pavement markings. Included in this investment are thousands of signs and other inventory items, equipment, facilities, and staff. The proper application of traffic control devices and pavement markings is critical to public safety on streets and highways, and local governments have a prescribed responsibility under the Code of Iowa to properly manage these assets. This research report addresses current traffic control and pavement marking application, maintenance, and management in Iowa.

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.

Liability and Traffic Control Considerations for Low Water Stream Crossings, HR-218, 1981

The current shortage of highway funds precludes the immediate replacement of most of the bridges that have been evaluated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete or both. A low water stream crossing (LWSC) affords an economical alternative to the replacement of a bridge with another bridge in many instances. However, the potential liability that might be incurred from the use of LWSCs has served as a deterrent to their use. Nor have guidelines for traffic control devices been developed for specific application to LWSCs. This research addressed the problems of liability and traffic control associated with the use of LWSCs. Input to the findings from this research was provided by several persons contacted by telephone plus 189 persons who responded to a questionnaire concerning their experience with LWSCs. It was concluded from this research that a significant potential for accidents and liability claims could result from the use of LWSCs. However, it was also concluded that this liability could be reduced to within acceptable limits if adequate warning of the presence of an LWSC were afforded to road users. The potential for accidents and liability could further be reduced if vehicular passage over an LWSC were precluded during periods when the road was flooded. Under these conditions, it is believed, the potential for liability from the use of an LWSC on an unpaved, rural road would be even less than that resulting from the continuing use of an inadequate bridge. The signs recommended for use in advance of an LWSC include two warning signs and one regulatory sign with legends as follows: FLOOD AREA AHEAD, IMPASSABLE DURING HIGH WATER, DO NOT ENTER WHEN FLOODED. Use of the regulatory sign would require an appropriate resolution by the Board of Supervisors having responsibility for a county road. Other recommendations include the optional use of either a supple mental distance advisory plate or an advisory speed plate, or both, under circumstances where these may be needed. It was also recommended HR-218 Liability & Traffic Control Considerations for Low Water Stream Crossings that LWSCs be used only on unpaved roads and that they not be used in locations where flooding of an LWSC would deprive dwelling places of emergency ground access.

Portable School Stop Signs and Other Non-Uniform School Stop Control Devices, HR-190, 1978

Portable (roll-out) stop signs are used at school crossings in over 300 cities in Iowa. Their use conforms to the Code of Iowa, although it is not consistent with the provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices adopted for nationwide application. A survey indicated that most users in Iowa believe that portable stop signs provide effective protection at school crossings, and favor their continued use. Other non-uniform signs that fold or rotate to display a STOP message only during certain hours are used at school crossings in over 60 cities in Iowa. Their use does not conform to either the Code of Iowa or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Users of these devices also tend to favor their continued use. A survey of other states indicated that use of temporary devices similar to those used in Iowa is not generally sanctioned. Some unsanctioned use apparently occurs in several states, however. A different type of portable stop sign for school crossings is authorized and widely used in one state. Portable stop signs similar to those used in Iowa are authorized in another state, although their use is quite limited. A few reports in the literature reviewed for this research discussed the use of portable stop signs. The authors of these reports uniformly recommended against the use of portable or temporary traffic control devices. Various reasons for this recommendation were given, although data to support the recommendation were not offered. As part of this research, field surveys were conducted at 54 locations in 33 communities where temporary stop control devices were in use at school crossings. Research personnel observed the obedience to stop control and measured the vehicular delay incurred. Stopped delay averaged 1.89 seconds/entering vehicle. Only 36.6 percent of the vehicles were observed to come to a complete stop at the study locations controlled by temporary stop control devices. However, this level of obedience does not differ from that observed at intersections controlled by permanent stop signs. Accident experience was compiled for 76 intersections in 33 communities in Iowa where temporary stop signs were used and, for comparative purposes, at 76 comparable intersections having other forms of control or operating without stop control. There were no significant differences in accident experience An economic analysis of vehicle operating costs, delay costs, and other costs indicated that temporary stop control generated costs only about 12 percent as great as permanent stop control for a street having a school crossing. Midblock pedestrian-actuated signals were shown to be cost effective in comparison with temporary stop signs under the conditions of use assumed. Such signals could be used effectively at a number of locations where temporary stop signs are being used. The results of this research do not provide a basis for recommending that use of portable stop signs be prohibited. However, erratic patterns of use of these devices and inadequate designs suggest that improved standards for their use are needed. Accordingly, nine recommendations are presented to enhance the efficiency of vehicular flow at school crossings, without causing a decline in the level of pedestrian protection being afforded.

Temporary Traffic Control Handbook, TR-694, 2016

This handbook provides a broad, easy to understand reference for temporary traffic control in work zones, addressing the safe and efficient accommodation of all road users: motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and those with special needs. When impacting a pedestrian facility, provide ten calendar days advance notification to the local jurisdiction and the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa (www.nfbi.org). The information presented is based on standards and guidance in the 2009 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). References to the MUTCD sign designations in this handbook are shown in parentheses, e.g. (W20-1). Not all the recommendations in this handbook will apply to every circumstance faced by local agencies, and each unique situation may not be addressed. Modifications of the typical applications in this handbook will be required to adapt to specific field conditions. Therefore, use engineering judgment, seeking the advice of experienced professionals and supervisors in difficult and complex interpretations. This handbook can be used as a reference for temporary traffic control in work zones on all city or county roadways. However, always check contract documents and local agency requirements for any pertinent modifications.

Uncontrolled Intersection report

By October 1, 2014, the county engineer of each county shall provide a report to the department of transportation identifying all locations in the county where two different roads or highways having speed limits of 55 miles per hour or greater intersect but are not controlled by an official traffic-control signal or by official traffic-control devices that direct traffic approaching from every direction to stop or yield before entering the intersection. On or before December 31, 2014, the department shall file a report with the legislative services agency detailing the number of locations of the intersections identified in the county engineers’ reports.

Temporary Traffic Control and Enforcement of Traffic Laws in Closed Road Sections, June 2007

Public travel by motor vehicles is often necessary in road and street sections that have been officially closed for construction, repair, and/or other reasons. This authorization is permitted in order to provide access to homes and businesses located beyond the point of closure. The MUTCD does address appropriate use of specific regulatory signs at the entrance to closed sections; however, direct guidance for temporary traffic control measures within these areas is not included but may be needed. Interpretation and enforcement of common practices may vary among transportation agencies. For example, some law enforcement officers in Iowa have indicated a concern regarding enforcement and jurisdiction of traffic laws in these areas because the Code of Iowa only appears to address violations on roadways open to “public travel.” Enforcement of traffic laws in closed road sections is desirable to maintain safety for workers and for specifically authorized road users. In addition, occasional unauthorized entry by motor vehicles is experienced in closed road areas causing property damage. Citations beyond simple trespass may be advisable to provide better security for construction sites, reduce economic losses from damage to completed work, and create safer work zones.

Utilization of Remote Traffic Monitoring Devices for Urban Freeway Work Zone Assessment Final Report, January 2012

The objective of this project was to promote and facilitate analysis and evaluation of the impacts of road construction activities in Smart Work Zone Deployment Initiative (SWZDI) states. The two primary objectives of this project were to assess urban freeway work-zone impacts through use of remote monitoring devices, such as radar-based traffic sensors, traffic cameras, and traffic signal loop detectors, and evaluate the effectiveness of using these devices for such a purpose. Two high-volume suburban freeway work zones, located on Interstate 35/80 (I-35/I-80) through the Des Moines, Iowa metropolitan area, were evaluated at the request of the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT).

Integrated Risk Management for Improving Internal Traffic Control, Work-Zone Safety, and Mobility during Major Construction, TPF-5(081), 2012

Highway construction is among the most dangerous industries in the US. Internal traffic control design, along with how construction equipment and vehicles interact with the traveling public, have a significant effect on how safe a highway construction work zone can be. An integrated approach was taken to research work-zone safety issues and mobility, including input from many personnel, ranging from roadway designers to construction laborers and equipment operators. The research team analyzed crash data from Iowa work-zone incident reports and Occupational Safety and Health Administration data for the industry in conjunction with the results of personal interviews, a targeted work-zone ingress and egress survey, and a work-zone pilot project.

Perception and Interpretation of Advance Warning Signs on County Roads, HR-256, 1984

This research consisted of five laboratory experiments designed to address the following two objectives in an integrated analysis: (1) To discriminate between the symbol Stop Ahead warning sign and a small set of other signs (which included the word-legend Stop Ahead sign); and (2) To analyze sign detection, recognizability, and processing characteristics by drivers. A set of 16 signs was used in each of three experiments. A tachistoscope was used to display each sign image to a respondent for a brief interval in a controlled viewing experiment. The first experiment was designed to test detection of a sign in the driver's visual field; the second experiment was designed to test the driver's ability to recognize a given sign in the visual field; and the third experiment was designed to test the speed and accuracy of a driver's response to each sign as a command to perform a driving action. A fourth experiment tested the meanings drivers associated with an eight-sign subset of the 16 signs used in the first three experiments. A fifth experiment required all persons to select which (if any) signs they considered to be appropriate for use on two scale model county road intersections. The conclusions are that word-legend Stop Ahead signs are more effective driver communication devices than symbol stop-ahead signs; that it is helpful to drivers to have a word plate supplementing the symbol sign if a symbol sign is used; and that the guidance in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices on the placement of advance warning signs should not supplant engineering judgment in providing proper sign communication at an intersection.

Evaluation of Air Pollution Control Devices for Asphalt Pavement Recycling Operations, HR-188, Progress Report, 1977

This report discusses the asphalt pavement recycling project designated Project HR-188 in Kossuth County, Iowa. Specific objectives were: (a) to determine the effectiveness of drum mixing plant modifications designed to control air pollution within limits specified by the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality; (b) to assess the impact of varying the proportions of recycled and virgin aggregates, (c) to assess the impact of varying the production rate of the plant, and (d) to assess the impact of varying the mixing temperature. The discussion includes information on the proposed use of research funds, project location and description, the project planning conference, plan development, bid letting, asphalt plant configuration, actual plant operation, why this method is successful, probable process limitations, pollution results, recycled pavement test results, and the cost of virgin vs. recycled asphalt pavements.

Minimum Retroreflectivity of Traffic Signs and Pavement Markings, HR-562, 1995

This final report contains two separate reports which describe the retroreflectivity levels of various traffic signs and pavement markings on the Iowa primary road system. The data was collected in the fall/winter of 1994 and given to the Federal Highway Administration in March of 1995. This information is currently being combined with similar information from other jurisdictions across the country for the purpose of determining the impact of mandated minimum retroreflectivity levels. The FHWA will be releasing their report sometime in 1996. In October 1992, Congress mandated (Public Law 102-388) the Secretary of Transportation to revise the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices to include a minimum level of retroreflectivity for pavement markings and traffic signs which shall apply to all roads open to public travel. In 1994, the FHWA initiated research studies to determine the retroreflectivity levels which currently exist for signs and markings in an attempt to develop standards which are reasonable to implement. The Iowa Department of Transportation participated in both of the studies and the final reports are included. After compilation and analysis of the collected retroreflectivity data, the FHWA will propose the new MUTCD standards through the federal rule making process. It is estimated that the actual MUTCD change will occur sometime in late 1997 or early 1998.

Traffic Signal Inventory Project, 2001

The Center for Transportation Research and Education performed a traffic signal inventory study for the Iowa Department of Transportation. The purpose of this study was to determine the level of compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and other industry standards of traffic signals on the state highway system. Signals were randomly selected throughout the State of Iowa. Only signals in cities with a population less than 5,000 were considered. Several intersections need to be addressed immediately to correct clearance timing settings. Red clearance intervals were frequently too short. A handful of intersections had inadequate pedestrian clearance times. Six intersections had at least one yellow clearance interval that did not meet Institute of Transportation Engineers standards. Some of the intersections likely would not meet traffic signal warrants and should be investigated for possible removal. The most common problem found with traffic signals was a lack of maintenance. Many of the signals had at least one of the following problems: burned out lights (signals and/or pedestrian heads), pedestrian lenses in need of replacement, dirty cabinet/missing or poor filter, missing visors, or inoperative pedestrian push buttons. Timing sheets were frequently missing or out of date. Another frequent noncompliance issue was the use of backplates. The MUTCD states that backplates should be used on signals viewed against a bright sky. The majority of signals inventoried did not have backplates on the mast-arm mounted signals. The timing at some intersections could likely be improved by reducing the cycle length. Where there were multiple signals in close proximity rarely was there any attempt at signal coordination. Finally, a number of intersections had equipment that by today’s standards would be considered obsolete.