Audit report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting of the State University of Iowa as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011

Audit report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting of the State University of Iowa as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011

Independent auditor’s report of the State of Iowa on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on an audit of financial statements performed in accordance with government auditing standards for the year ended June 30, 2011

Independent auditor’s report of the State of Iowa on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on an audit of financial statements performed in accordance with government auditing standards for the year ended June 30, 2011

Audit report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters of the State of Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2012

Audit report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters of the State of Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2012

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.

A Feasibility Study on Embedded Micro-Electromechanical Sensors and Systems (MEMS) for Monitoring Highway Structures, TR-575, 2011

Micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) provide vast improvements over existing sensing methods in the context of structural health monitoring (SHM) of highway infrastructure systems, including improved system reliability, improved longevity and enhanced system performance, improved safety against natural hazards and vibrations, and a reduction in life cycle cost in both operating and maintaining the infrastructure. Advancements in MEMS technology and wireless sensor networks provide opportunities for long-term continuous, real-time structural health monitoring of pavements and bridges at low cost within the context of sustainable infrastructure systems. The primary objective of this research was to investigate the use of MEMS in highway structures for health monitoring purposes. This study focused on investigating the use of MEMS and their potential applications in concrete through a comprehensive literature review, a vendor survey, and a laboratory study, as well as a small-scale field study. Based on the comprehensive literature review and vendor survey, the latest information available on off-the-shelf MEMS devices, as well as research prototypes, for bridge, pavement, and traffic applications were synthesized. A commercially-available wireless concrete monitoring system based on radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology and off-the-shelf temperature and humidity sensors were tested under controlled laboratory and field conditions. The test results validated the ability of the RFID wireless concrete monitoring system in accurately measuring the temperature both inside the laboratory and in the field under severe weather conditions. In consultation with the project technical advisory committee (TAC), the most relevant MEMS-based transportation infrastructure research applications to explore in the future were also highlighted and summarized.

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.