Iowa Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan, September 2006

In Iowa, hundreds of people die and thousands more are injured on our public roadways each year despite decades of efforts to end this su�ffering. Past safety e�efforts have resulted in Iowans bene�fiting from one of the best state roadway systems in the nation. Due to multi-agency e�efforts, Iowa has achieved 90 percent compliance with the state’s mandatory front seat belt use law, earned the nation’s second-lowest percent of alcohol involvement in fatal crashes and made safety gains in system-wide roadway design and operational improvements. Despite these ongoing e�efforts, the state’s annual average of 445 deaths and thousands of life-changing injuries is a tragic toll and an unacceptable public health epidemic in our state. To save more lives on our roadways, Iowans must be challenged to think �differently about lifesaving measures addressing young drivers, safety belts, and motorcycle helmet use and accept innovative designs such as roundabouts. Iowa must apply evidence-based strategies and create a safety culture that motivates all citizens to travel more responsibly. They must demand a lower level of tolerance for Iowa’s roadway deaths and injuries. The Iowa Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan (CHSP) engages diverse safety stakeholders and charts the course for this state, bringing to bear sound science and the power of shared community values to change the culture and achieve a standard of safer travel for our citizens. How many roadway deaths and injuries are too many? Iowa’s highway safety stakeholders believe that, “One death is one too many” and e�effective culture-changing policy and program strategies must be implemented to help reduce this death toll from an annual average of 445 to 400 by the year 2015.

Protection of Structural Concrete Substructures, HR-220, December 1992

In the past, many pier columns were deteriorating due to attack by chlorides. The chloride (from deicers) has attacked the substructures by drainage from the superstructure. Piers supporting grade separation bridges are also subject to chlorides contained in the direct splash from lower level traffic. Repairs of these piers are both difficult and costly. In this project, four different sealants were applied to piers to evaluate their use in the protection of the concrete against chloride-ions. One pier was left untreated to use as a control pier with which to compare the protected piers. This project began in 1980 and was to be completed in 1985, but at that time it was determined further testing was needed to make a more conclusive evaluation.

Protection of Structural Concrete Substructures, HR-220, Progress Report, 1984

The corrosion of reinforcing steel within concrete has always been a problem in construction of bridge decks. With low slump concrete and epoxy rebar, progress has been made in controlling the corrosion. There is concern, however, that the chloride also attacks the substructures, specifically the pier columns. They are subject to chloride attack by chemical deicers in the drainage from the bridge deck. Piers supporting grade separation bridges are also subject to chlorides contained in the direct splash from the lower level traffic. In this project, a field evaluation was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of commercially available products in preventing chloride intrusion.

Farm-Level Analysis of Risk Management Proposals, March 2000

This paper presents a detailed report of the representative farm analysis (summarized in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #01-00). At the request of several members of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate, we have continued to analyze the impacts of the Farmers’ Risk Management Act of 1999 (S. 1666) and the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act (S. 1580). Earlier analysis reported in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #04-99 concentrated on the aggregate net farm income and government outlay impacts. The representative farm analysis is conducted for several types of farms, including both irrigated and non-irrigated cotton farms in Tom Green County, Texas; dryland wheat farms in Morton County, North Dakota and Sumner County, Kansas; and a corn farm in Webster County, Iowa. We consider additional factors that may shed light on the differential impacts of the two plans. 1. Farm-level income impacts under alternative weather scenarios. 2. Additional indirect impacts, such as a change in ability to obtain financing. 3. Implications of within-year price shocks. Our results indicate that farmers who buy crop insurance will increase their coverage levels under S. 1580. Farmers with high yield risk find that the 65 percent coverage level maximizes expected returns, but some who feel that they obtain other benefits from higher coverage will find that the S. 1580 subsidy schedule significantly lowers the cost of obtaining the additional coverage. Farmers with lower yield risk find that the increased indemnities from additional coverage will more than offset the increase in producer premium. In addition, because S. 1580 extends its increased premium subsidy percentages to revenue insurance products, farmers will have an increased incentive to buy revenue insurance. Differences in the ancillary benefits from crop insurance under the baseline and S. 1580 would be driven by the increase in insurance participation and buy-up. Given the same levels of insurance participation and buy-up, the ancillary benefits under the two scenarios would be the same.