Implementation of a Pilot Continuous Monitoring System: Iowa Falls Arch Bridge, HR-1088, 2015

The goal of this work was to move structural health monitoring (SHM) one step closer to being ready for mainstream use by the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Bridges and Structures. To meet this goal, the objective of this project was to implement a pilot multi-sensor continuous monitoring system on the Iowa Falls Arch Bridge such that autonomous data analysis, storage, and retrieval can be demonstrated. The challenge with this work was to develop the open channels for communication, coordination, and cooperation of various Iowa DOT offices that could make use of the data. In a way, the end product was to be something akin to a control system that would allow for real-time evaluation of the operational condition of a monitored bridge. Development and finalization of general hardware and software components for a bridge SHM system were investigated and completed. This development and finalization was framed around the demonstration installation on the Iowa Falls Arch Bridge. The hardware system focused on using off-the-shelf sensors that could be read in either “fast” or “slow” modes depending on the desired monitoring metric. As hoped, the installed system operated with very few problems. In terms of communications—in part due to the anticipated installation on the I-74 bridge over the Mississippi River—a hardline digital subscriber line (DSL) internet connection and grid power were used. During operation, this system would transmit data to a central server location where the data would be processed and then archived for future retrieval and use. The pilot monitoring system was developed for general performance evaluation purposes (construction, structural, environmental, etc.) such that it could be easily adapted to the Iowa DOT’s bridges and other monitoring needs. The system was developed allowing easy access to near real-time data in a format usable to Iowa DOT engineers.

2009-2013 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. 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 FY2009-2013 highway section is financially balanced and was developed to achieve several objectives. The Commission's primary highway investment objective is the safety, maintenance and preservation of Iowa's existing highway system. The Commission has allocated an annual average of $321 million to achieve this objective. This includes $185 million in 2009 and $170 million annually in years 2010-2013 for preserving the interstate system. It includes $114 million in 2009, $100 million in 2010 and $90 million annually in years 2011-2013 for non-interstate pavement preservation. It includes $38 million annually in 2009 and 2010, and $35 million annually in years 2011-2013 for non-interstate bridges. In addition, $15 million annually is allocated for safety projects. However, due to increasing construction costs, flattened revenues and overall highway systems needs, the Commission acknowledges that insufficient funds are being invested in the maintenance and preservation of the existing highway system. Another objective involves investing in projects that have received funding from the federal transportation act and/or subsequent federal transportation appropriation acts. In particular, funding is being used where it will complete a project, corridor or useable segment of a larger project. As an investment goal, the Commission also wishes to advance highway projects that address the state's highway capacity and economic development needs. Projects that address these needs and were included for completion in the previous program have been advanced into this year's Program to maintain their scheduled completion. This program also includes a small number of other projects that generally either represent a final phase of a partially programmed project or an additional segment of a partially completed corridor. The TIME-21 bill, Senate File 2420, signed by Governor Chet Culver on April 22, provides additional funding to cities, counties and the Iowa DOT for road improvements. This will result in additional revenue to the Primary Road Fund beginning in the second half of FY2009 and gradually increase over time. The additional funding will be included in future highway programming objectives and proposals and is not reflected in this highway program. 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.

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.

2011 - 2015 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. This document serves as the Iowa DOT's annual report as required by Iowa Code section 7A.9. This document reflects Iowa’s multimodal transportation system by the inclusion of investments in aviation, transit, railroads, trails, and highways. A major component of this program is the highway section that documents programmed investments on the primary highway system for the next five years. A large part of funding available for highway programming comes from the federal government. Accurately estimating future funding levels of this federal funding is dependent on having a current enacted multi-year federal transportation authorization. The most recent authorization, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), expired September 30, 2009, and to date it has been extended five times because a new authorization has not yet been enacted. The current extension expires December 31, 2010. While Iowa law does not require the adoption of a Program when federal transportation funding is being reauthorized, the Commission believes it is important to adopt a Program in order to continue on-going planning and project development efforts and to be well positioned when a new authorization is adopted. However, it is important to recognize that, absent a federal authorization bill, there is significant uncertainty in the forecast of federal revenues. The Commission and the Iowa DOT will continue to monitor federal revenues and will adjust future investments as needed to maintain a fiscally responsible Program. In developing the highway section of the program, the Commission’s primary investment objective remains stewardship (i.e. safety, maintenance and preservation) of Iowa’s existing highway system. In fact, over $1.2 billion is programmed in FY2011 through FY2015 for preservation of Iowa’s existing highway system and for enhanced highway safety features. The highway section also includes significant investments for interstate modernization on I-29 inSioux City, on I-29/80/480 in Council Bluffs, and on I-74 in Bettendorf/ Davenport. Another highway programming objective reflected in this Program is maintaining the scheduled completion of capacity and economic development projects that were identified in the previous Program. Finally, with the limited remaining funds the Commission has furthered the investment in capacity and economic development by adding a few projects to the Program. 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.

Study Regarding Implementation of a Uniform Statewide System to Allow for Electronic Transactions for the Registration and Titling of Motor Vehicles

LEGISLATIVE STUDY – The 83rd General Assembly of the Iowa Legislature, in Senate File 2273, directed the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) to conduct a study of how to implement a uniform statewide system to allow for electronic transactions for the registration and titling of motor vehicles. PARTICIPANTS IN STUDY – As directed by Senate File 2273, the DOT formed a working group to conduct the study that included representatives from the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Revenue, the Iowa State County Treasurer’s Association, the Iowa Automobile Dealers Association, and the Iowa Independent Automobile Dealers Association. CONDUCT OF THE STUDY – The working group met eight times between June 17, 2010, and October 1, 2010. The group discussed the costs and benefits of electronic titling from the perspectives of new and used motor vehicle dealers, county treasurers, the DOT, lending institutions, consumers and consumer protection, and law enforcement. Security concerns, legislative implications, and implementation timelines were also considered. In the course of the meetings the group: 1. Reviewed the specific goals of S.F. 2273, and viewed a demonstration of Iowa’s current vehicle registration and titling system so participants that were not users of the system could gain an understanding of its current functionality and capabilities. 2. Reviewed the results of a survey of county treasurers conducted by the DOT to determine the extent to which county treasurers had processing backlogs and the extent to which county treasurers limited the number of dealer registration and titling transactions that they would process in a single day and while the dealer waited. Only eight reported placing a limit on the number of dealer transactions that would be processed while the dealer waited (with the number ranging from one to four), and only 11 reported a backlog in processing registration and titling transactions as of June 11, 2010, with most backlogs being reported in the range of one to three days. 3. Conducted conference calls with representatives of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and representatives of three states -- Kansas, which has an electronic lien and titling (ELT) program, and Wisconsin and Florida, each of which have both an ELT program and an electronic registration and titling (ERT) program – to assess current and best practices for electronic transactions. In addition, the DOT (through AAMVA) submitted a survey to all U.S. jurisdictions to determine how, if at all, other states implemented electronic transactions for the registration and titling of motor vehicles. Twenty-eight states responded to the survey; of the 28 states that responded, only 13 allowed liens to be added or released electronically, and only five indicated allowing applications for registration and titling to be submitted electronically. DOT staff also heard a presentation from South Dakota on its ERT system at an AAMVA regional meeting. ELT information that emerged suggests a multi-vendor approach, in which vendors that meet state specifications for participation are authorized to interface with the state’s system to serve as a portal between lenders and the state system, will facilitate electronic lien releases and additions by offering lenders more choices and the opportunity to use the same vendor in multiple states. The ERT information that emerged indicates a multi-interface approach that offers an interface with existing dealer management software (DMS) systems and through a separate internet site will facilitate ERT by offering access that meets a variety of business needs and models. In both instances, information that emerged indicates that, in the long-term, adoption rates are positively affected by making participation above a certain minimum threshold mandatory. 4. To assess and compare functions or services that might be offered by or through a vendor, the group heard presentations from vendors that offer products or services that facilitate some aspect of ELT or ERT. 5. To assess the concerns, needs and interest of Iowa motor vehicle dealers, the group surveyed dealers to assess registration and titling difficulties experienced by dealers, the types of DMS systems (if any) used by dealers, and the dealers’ interest and preference in using an electronic interface to submit applications for registration and titling. Overall, 40% of the dealers that responded indicated interest and 57% indicated no interest, but interest was pronounced among new car dealers (75% were interested) and dealers with a high number of monthly transactions (85% of dealers averaging more than 50 sales per month were interested). The majority of dealers responding to the dealer survey ranked delays in processing and problems with daily limits on transaction as ―minor difficulty or ―no difficulty. RECOMMENDATIONS -- At the conclusion of the meetings, the working group discussed possible approaches for implementation of electronic transactions in Iowa and reached a consensus that a phased implementation of electronic titling that addressed first electronic lien and title transactions (ELT) and electronic fund transfers (EFT), and then electronic applications for registration and titling (ERT) is recommended. The recommendation of a phased implementation is based upon recognition that aspects of ELT and EFT are foundational to ERT, and that ELT and EFT solutions are more readily and easily attained than the ERT solution, which will take longer and be somewhat more difficult to develop and will require federal approval of an electronic odometer statement to fully implement. ELT – A multi-vendor approach is proposed for ELT. No direct costs to the state, counties, consumers, or dealers are anticipated under this approach. The vendor charges participating lenders user or transaction fees for the service, and it appears the lenders typically absorb those costs due to the savings offered by ELT. Existing staff can complete the programming necessary to interface the state system with vendors’ systems. The estimated time to implement ELT is six to nine months. Mandatory participation is not recommended initially, but should be considered after ELT has been implemented and a suitable number of vendors have enrolled to provide a fair assessment of participation rates and opportunities. EFT – A previous attempt to implement ELT and EFT was terminated due to concern that it would negatively impact county revenues by reducing interest income earned on state funds collected by the county and held until the monthly transfer to the state. To avoid that problem in this implementation, the EFT solution should remain revenue neutral to the counties, by allowing fees submitted by EFT to be immediately directed to the proper county account. Because ARTS was designed and has the capacity to accommodate EFT, a vendor is not needed to implement EFT. The estimated time to implement EFT is six to nine months. It is expected that EFT development will overlap ELT development. ERT – ERT itself must be developed in phases. It will not be possible to quickly implement a fully functioning, paperless ERT system, because federal law requires that transfer of title be accompanied by a written odometer statement unless approval for an alternate electronic statement is granted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). It is expected that it will take as much as a year or more to obtain NHTSA approval, and that NHTSA approval will require design of a system that requires the seller to electronically confirm the seller’s identity, make the required disclosure to the buyer, and then transfer the disclosure to the buyer, who must also electronically confirm the buyer’s identity and electronically review and accept the disclosure to complete and submit the transaction. Given the time that it will take to develop and gain approval for this solution, initial ERT implementation will focus on completing and submitting applications and issuing registration applied for cards electronically, with the understanding that this process will still require submission of paper documents until an electronic odometer solution is developed. Because continued submission of paper documents undermines the efficiencies sought, ―full‖ ERT – that is, all documents necessary for registration and titling should be capable of approval and/or acceptance by all parties, and should be capable of submission without transmittal or delivery of duplicate paper documents .– should remain the ultimate goal. ERT is not recommended as a means to eliminate review and approval of registration and titling transactions by the county treasurers, or to place registration and titling approval in the hands of the dealers, as county treasurers perform an important role in deterring fraud and promoting accuracy by determining the genuineness and regularity of each application. Authorizing dealers to act as registration agents that approve registration and title applications, issue registration receipts, and maintain and deliver permanent metal license plates is not recommended. Although distribution of permanent plates by dealers is not recommended, it is recommended that dealers participating in ERT generate and print registration applied for cards electronically. Unlike the manually-issued cards currently in use, cards issued in this fashion may be queried by law enforcement and are less susceptible to misuse by customers and dealers. The estimated time to implement the electronic application and registration applied for cards is 12 to 18 months, to begin after ELT and EFT have been implemented. It is recommended that focus during this time be on facilitating transfers through motor vehicle dealers, with initial deployment focused on higher-volume dealers that use DMS systems. In the long term an internet option for access to ERT must also be developed and maintained to allow participation for lower-volume dealers that do not use a DMS system. This option will also lay the ground work for an ERT option for sales between private individuals. Mandatory participation in Iowa is not recommended initially. As with ELT, it is recommended that mandatory participation be considered after at least an initial phase of ERT has been implemented and a suitable number of dealers have enrolled to provide a fair assessment of participation rates and opportunities. The use of vendors to facilitate ERT is not initially proposed because 1) DOT IT support staff is capable of developing a system that will interact with DMS systems and will still have to develop a dealer and public interface regardless of whether a vendor acts as intermediary between the DMS systems, and 2) there is concern that the cost of the vendor-based system, which is funded by transaction-based payments from the dealer to the vendor, will be passed to the consumer in the form of additional documentation or conveyance fees. However, the DOT recommends flexibility on this point, as development and pilot of the system may indicate that a multi-vendor approach similar to that recommended for ELT may increase the adoption rate by larger dealers and may ultimately decrease the user management to be exercised by DOT staff. If vendors are used in the process, additional legislation or administrative rules may be needed to control the fees that may be passed to the consumer. No direct cost to the DOT or county treasurers is expected, as the DOT expects that it may complete necessary programming with existing staff. Use of vendors to facilitate ERT transactions by dealers using DMS systems would result in transaction fees that may ultimately be passed to consumers. LEGISLATION – As a result of the changes implemented in 2004 under Senate File 2070, the only changes to Iowa statutes proposed are to section 321.69 of the Iowa Code, ―Damage disclosure statement,and section 321.71, ―Odometer requirements.‖ In each instance, authority to execute these statements by electronic means would be clarified by authorizing language similar to that used in section 321.20, subsections ―2‖ and ―3,‖ which allows for electronic applications and directs the department to ―adopt rules on the method for providing signatures for applications made by electronic means.‖ In these sections, the authorizing language might read as follows: Notwithstanding contrary provisions of this section, the department may develop and implement a program to allow for any statement required by this section to be made electronically. The department shall adopt rules on the method for providing signatures for statements made by electronic means. Some changes to DOT administrative rules will be useful but only to enable changes to work processes that would be desirable in the long term. Examples of long term work processes that would be enabled by rule changes include allowing for signatures created through electronic means and electronic odometer certifications. The DOT rules, as currently written, do not hinder the ability to proceed with ELT, EFT, and ERT.

2012-2016 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. This document reflects Iowa’s multimodal transportation system by the inclusion of investments in aviation, transit, railroads, trails, and highways. A major component of this program is the highway section that documents programmed investments on the primary highway system for the next five years. A large part of funding available for highway programming comes from the federal government. Accurately estimating future federal funding levels is dependent on having a current enacted multi-year federal transportation authorization. The most recent authorization, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), expired September 30, 2009, and to date it has been extended seven times because a new authorization has not yet been enacted. The current extension will expire September 30, 2011. This leads to significant uncertainty in federal funding; however, it is becoming evident that, in Federal Fiscal Year 2012 and beyond, federal funding revenue will likely be reduced by 25 percent from current levels in order to match revenue that flows into the Highway Trust Fund. This Program reflects this anticipated reduction in federal funding. While Iowa law does not require the adoption of a Program when federal transportation funding is being reauthorized, the Commission believes it is important to adopt a Program in order to continue on-going planning and project development efforts so that Iowa will be well positioned when a new authorization is adopted. However, it is important to recognize that, absent a federal authorization bill, there is significant uncertainty in the forecast of federal revenues. The Commission and the Iowa DOT will continue to monitor federal revenues and will adjust future investments as needed to maintain a fiscally responsible Program. For 2012-2016, approximately $2.3 billion is forecast to be available for highway right of way and construction. In developing the highway section of the Program, the Commission’s primary investment objective remains stewardship (i.e. safety, maintenance and preservation) of Iowa’s existing highway system. Over $1.3 billion is programmed in FY2012 through FY2016 for preservation of Iowa’s existing highway system and for enhanced highway safety features. The highway section also includes significant interstate investments on I-29 in Sioux City, I-29/80/480 in Council Bluffs, and I-74 in Bettendorf/Davenport. The FY2016 programming for construction on I-74 in Bettendorf/Davenport is the first of several years of significant investments that will be monitored for available funding. Approximately $200 million of the investments on these three major urban interstate projects address preservation needs. In total, approximately $1.5 billion is programmed for highway preservation activities for 2012- 2016. Another highway programming objective is maintaining the scheduled completion of capacity and economic development projects. Projects that were previously scheduled to be completed within the previous Program continue on their current schedule. However, due to the reduction of projected federal revenues, the Commission has delayed by one year the initiation of construction of all multi-year non-Interstate capacity and economic development projects that cannot be completed within this Program. These projects are U.S. 20 in Woodbury County, U.S. 30 in Benton County, U.S. 61 in Louisa County, and Iowa 100 in Linn County. 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.

Investing in Iowa’s Highways, June 15, 2011

The Iowa Transportation Commission (Commission) and Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) develop Iowa’s Five-Year Transportation Improvement Program (Five-Year Program) to inform Iowans of planned investments in our state’s multi-modal transportation system. The Five-Year Program is typically updated and approved each year in June. The Five-Year Program encompasses investments in aviation, transit, railroads, trails, and highways. This brochure describes the programming process used by the Commission and Iowa DOT to develop the highway section of the Five-Year Program. Each day Iowans are affected by some facet of highway transportation, whether it is to get to work or a medical appointment, receive mail, allow groceries and other goods to be stocked on local shelves, or the many other ways highways keep people, goods and services moving in our state. Iowa’s interstate and primary highways managed by the Iowa DOT are an important part of our personal mobility and state’s economy. They also provide essential connections to Iowa’s secondary roads and city streets. The process of making the critical decisions about what investments will be made to preserve and expand the state-managed highway network is complex. It involves input from a wide range of individuals and organizations, and is based on an expansive programming process.

Reforming the Iowa Civil Justice System, January 30, 2012

Executive Summary I. Survey The Task Force conducted a wide-ranging survey of more than 9,000 licensed Iowa attorneys and judges to obtain their input on a variety of civil justice system topics. The survey results helped inform the Task Force of problem areas in Iowa’s civil justice system. II. Two-Tier Justice System The Task Force recommends a pilot program based on a two-tier civil justice system. A two-tier system would streamline litigation processes—including rules of evidence and discovery disclosures—and reduce litigation costs of certain cases falling below a threshold dollar value. III. One Judge/One Case and Date Certain for Trial Some jurisdictions in Iowa have adopted one judge/one case and date certain for trial in certain cases. The assignment of one judge to each case for the life of the matter and the establishment of dates certain for civil trials could enhance Iowans’ access to the courts, improve judicial management, promote consistency and adherence to deadlines, and reduce discovery excesses. IV. Discovery Processes Reforms addressing inefficient discovery processes will reduce delays in and costs of litigation. Such measures include adopting an aspirational purpose for discovery rules to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,” holding discovery proportional to the size and nature of the case, requiring initial disclosures, limiting the number of expert witnesses, and enforcing existing rules. V. Expert Witness Fees The Task Force acknowledges the probable need to revisit the statutory additional daily compensation limit for expert witness fees. Leaving the compensation level to the discretion of the trial court is one potential solution. VI. Jurors Additions to the standard juror questionnaire would provide a better understanding of the potential jurors’ backgrounds and suitability for jury service. The Task Force encourages adoption of more modern juror educational materials and video. Rehabilitation of prospective jurors who express an unwillingness or inability to be fair should include a presumption of dismissal. VII. Video and Teleconferencing Options When court resources are constrained both by limited numbers of personnel and budget cuts, it is logical to look to video and teleconferencing technology to streamline the court process and reduce costs. The judicial branch should embrace technological developments in ways that will not compromise the fairness, dignity, solemnity, and decorum of judicial proceedings. VIII. Court-Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) Litigants and practitioners in Iowa are generally satisfied with the current use of private, voluntary ADR for civil cases. There is concern, however, that maintaining the status quo may have steep future costs. Court-annexed ADR is an important aspect of any justice system reform effort, and the Task Force perceives benefits and detriments to reforming this aspect of the Iowa civil justice system. IX. Relaxed Requirement of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law A rule authorizing parties to waive findings of fact and conclusions of law could expedite resolution of nonjury civil cases. X. Business (Specialty) Courts Specialty business courts have achieved widespread support across the country. In addition, specialty courts provide excellent vehicles for implementing or piloting other court innovations that may be useful in a broader court system context. A business specialty court should be and could be piloted in Iowa within the existing court system framework of the Iowa Judicial Branch. Appendix included as a separate document, is 176 pages.

Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning Advisory Council Progress on the Long-range Justice System Plan, January 2010

Iowa Code Section 216A.135 requires the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning Advisory Council (CJJPAC) to submit a long-range plan for Iowa's justice system to the Governor and General Assembly every five years. The Criminal and Juvenile Justice Advisory Council directed that the 2005 plan be developed with input from the public. A public hearing was held in September 2004, utilizing the Iowa Communications Network at five sites across Iowa. Using the information gained, the Council developed new goals and strategies and modified others from the 2000 plan. The 2005 Long Range Goals for Iowa’s Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems, organized as follows, are meant to facilitate analyses and directions for justice system issues and concerns in Iowa.

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**************************

Development of an Expert System for Forecasting Frost on Bridges and Roadways in Iowa, HR-305, 1991

An expert system has been developed that provides 24 hour forecasts of roadway and bridge frost for locations in Iowa. The system is based on analysis of frost observations taken by highway maintenance personnel, analysis of conditions leading to frost as obtained from meteorologists with experience in forecasting bridge and roadway frost, and from fundamental physical principles of frost processes. The expert system requires the forecaster to enter information on recent maximum and minimum temperatures and forecasts of maximum and minimum air temperatures, dew point temperatures, precipitation, cloudiness, and wind speed. The system has been used operationally for the last two frost seasons by Freese-Notis Associates, who have been under contract with the Iowa DOT to supply frost forecasts. The operational meteorologists give the system their strong endorsement. They always consult the system before making a frost forecast unless conditions clearly indicate frost is not likely. In operational use, the system is run several times with different input values to test the sensitivity of frost formation on a particular day to various meteorological parameters. The users comment. that the system helps them to consider all the factors relevant to frost formation and is regarded as an office companion for making frost forecasts.

Evaluation of an Epoxy Pavement Marking System, HR-180, 1978

The purpose of this research project is to determine if (1) epoxy lane markings will last an entire winter season without replacement, (2) epoxy lane marking is an economical alternative to standard paint on high-traffic multi-lane roadways where lane changing is frequent, and (3) there are worthwhile benefits derived from thorough cleaning of the pavement surface before painting. The success of epoxy lane marking depends on the success of the equipment with which it is mixed and applied. The epoxy lane marking material, if properly mixed and placed on a clean surface, has the durability required to withstand a high traffic volume and frequent lane changes for at least one year.

A Computer Based Information System for County Equipment Cost Records, Interim Report, HR-173, 1975

This report describes the work accomplished to date on research project HR-173, A Computer Based Information System for County Equipment Cost Records, and presents the initial design for this system. The specific topics discussed here are findings from the analysis of information needs, the system specifications developed from these findings, and the proposed system design based upon the system specifications. The initial system design will include tentative input designs for capturing input data, output designs to show the output formats and the items to be output for use in decision making, file design showing the organization of information to be kept on each piece of equipment in the computer data file, and general system design explaining how the entire system will operate. The Steering Committee appointed by Iowa Highway Research Board is asked to study this report, make appropriate suggestions, and give approval to the proposed design subject to any suggestions made. This approval will permit the designer to proceed promptly with the development of the computer program implementation phase of the design.

A Computer Based Information System for County Equipment Cost Records, Final Report, HR-173, 1975

This appendix is divided into three sections. The first section contains abstracts of each of the eight computer programs in the system, instructions for keypunching the three input documents, and computer operating instructions pertaining to each program. The second section contains system flowcharts for the entire system as well as program flowcharts for each program. The last section contains PL/l program listings of each program.

Optimizing Pavement Base, Subbase, and Subgrade Layers for Cost and Performance of Local Roads, TR-640

This report is one of two products for this project with the other being a design guide. This report describes test results and comparative analysis from 16 different portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement sites on local city and county roads in Iowa. At each site the surface conditions of the pavement (i.e., crack survey) and foundation layer strength, stiffness, and hydraulic conductivity properties were documented. The field test results were used to calculate in situ parameters used in pavement design per SUDAS and AASHTO (1993) design methodologies. Overall, the results of this study demonstrate how in situ and lab testing can be used to assess the support conditions and design values for pavement foundation layers and how the measurements compare to the assumed design values. The measurements show that in Iowa, a wide range of pavement conditions and foundation layer support values exist. The calculated design input values for the test sites (modulus of subgrade reaction, coefficient of drainage, and loss of support) were found to be different than typically assumed. This finding was true for the full range of materials tested. The findings of this study support the recommendation to incorporate field testing as part of the process to field verify pavement design values and to consider the foundation as a design element in the pavement system. Recommendations are provided in the form of a simple matrix for alternative foundation treatment options if the existing foundation materials do not meet the design intent. The PCI prediction model developed from multi-variate analysis in this study demonstrated a link between pavement foundation conditions and PCI. The model analysis shows that by measuring properties of the pavement foundation, the engineer will be able to predict long term performance with higher reliability than by considering age alone. This prediction can be used as motivation to then control the engineering properties of the pavement foundation for new or re-constructed PCC pavements to achieve some desired level of performance (i.e., PCI) with time.