Effect of a Noise Wall on Snow Accumulation and Air Quality, 1985

A noise wall was investigated to assess its effect on snow accumulation and air quality. Wind tunnel studies were undertaken to evaluate (a) possible snow accumulations and (b) the dispersion of particulate concentrations (dust, smoke, and lead particles) and carbon monoxide. Full-scale monitoring of particulate concentrations and carbon monoxide was performed both before and after the noise wall was constructed. The wind tunnel experiments for snow accumulation were conducted on a model wall located in a flat, unobstructed area. A separated flow zone existed upwind of the wall and snow immediately began to accumulate over most of the separated zone. Having the noise wall in an aerodynamically rough area, such as in an urban area as this one was, substantially decreased the amount of snow collected, compared with in the wind tunnel studies, because of turbulence reducing the separation zone. The snow accumulation has not been significantly greater with the noise wall in place than it was before construction and has proven to be of no concern to date. Monitoring for particulate concentrations has shown that the noise wall has had a beneficial effect because the amount of material collected was reduced. With the noise wall in place, monitoring for carbon monoxide has indicated that (a) for equivalent emissions under conditions of high atmospheric stability and low wind speeds, the carbon monoxide levels would be lower; and (b) under conditions of low atmospheric stability and high wind speeds, the carbon monoxide levels would be higher than expected without the wall in place.

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.

Evaluation of Changes in Productivity Resulting from Removal of Soil for Highway Construction, HR-186, 1981

Borrow areas are created where soil is removed to provide needed fill material for highway and other construction projects. Where these areas are located beyond the highway right-of-way, they must be restored and returned to useful purposes. In Iowa, borrow areas are often developed on agricultural lands and therefore, it is necessary to return them to agricultural uses whenever possible. This research project was established to evaluate the changes in row crop productivity where borrow is removed for highway construction. Secondly, several reclamation techniques were selected to be applied to borrow area research sites and the response of crops to each treatment will be evaluated. All borrow area research sites were selected in 1977 from Iowa Department of Transportation construction plans. The Audubon and Buchanan County sites were completed in the fall of 1977 and May 1978, respectively. Both were used for research in 1978, 1979, and 1980. The two remaining sites in Hamilton and Lee Counties were completed in the fall of 1978 and research was conducted at these sites in 1979, 1980, and 1981. In this report, the 1981 results from the Hamilton and Lee County borrow sites will be presented. Secondly, a summary of the three years of research from each borrow area will be presented along with specific and general conclusions from the research project.

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.