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).

Smart News, Issue 5, Spring 2001

Newsletter for Economic Development

Smart News, Issues 6, Summer 2001

Newsletter for Economic Development

Smart News, Issue 7, Fall, 2001

Newsletter for Economic Development

Smart News, Issue 8, Spring 2002

Newsletter for Economic Development

Smart News, Issue 9, 2003

Newsletter for Economic Development.

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.

SMART News, Summer 2006

News from the Iowa Careers Consortium

Iowa Smart Planning Task Force Report

In the 2010 legislative session, the General Assembly passed and the Governor signed into law Senate File 2389 (SF 2389), which provided guidance for Smart Planning in Iowa and established the Iowa Smart Planning Task Force. This Task Force was charged with recommending policies and strategies for creating a stronger planning culture in Iowa, producing more resilient and sustainable communities. The Task Force, along with its two committees and four workgroups, met throughout the summer and fall of 2010 to identify and review best practices, consult local and national experts, and craft recommendations in the best interest of Iowans. A public input process was also implemented, resulting in improved recommendations.

Smart Planning in Iowa - A Guide to Principles, Strategies and Policy Tools

This guide was created to aid communities in the process of smart planning and is organized around the 10 Smart Planning Principles signed into Iowa law in 2010. A general description of the concept, strategies for encouraging use, policy tools for implementation, and a current Iowa example are presented for each Principle. In addition, a brief list of resources is provided to help local governments, community organizations and citizen planners find information and ideas on community involvement and incorporation of smart planning concepts in every day decisions.

Curb it-Click it Electronic Communication Devices Prohibited Uses While Driving

This brochure explains Iowa's laws concerning the use of cell phones and other electronic communication devices while driving.

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.

Analysis of Existing Work-Zone Devices with MASH Safety Performance Criteria, TPF-5(018), 2009

Crashworthy, work-zone, portable sign support systems accepted under NCHRP Report No. 350 were analyzed to predict their safety peformance according to the TL-3 MASH evaluation criteria. An analysis was conducted to determine which hardware parameters of sign support systems would likely contribute to the safety performance with MASH. The acuracy of the method was evaluated through full-scale crash testing. Four full-scale crash tests were conducted with a pickup truck. Two tall-mounted, sign support systems with aluminum sign panels failed the MASH criteria due to windshield penetration. One low-mounted system with a vinyl, roll-up sign panel failed the MASH criteria due to windshield and floorboard penetration. Another low-mounted system with an aluminum sign panel successfully met the MASH criteria. Four full-scale crash tests were conducted with a small passenger car. The low-mounted tripod system with an aluminum sign panel failed the MASH criteria due to windshield penetration. One low-mounted system with aluminum sign panel failed the MASH criteria due to excessive windshield deformation, and another similar system passed the MASH criteria. The low-mounted system with a vinyl, roll-up sign panel successfully met the MASH criteria. Hardware parameters of work-zone sign support systems that were determined to be important for failure with MASH include sign panel material, the height to the top of the mast, the presence of flags, sign-locking mechanism, base layout and system orientation. Flowcharts were provided to assist manufacturers when designing new sign support systems.

Consumer Advisory: The Drive to Destroy: Removing data from computer hard drives, storage devices & wireless phones, June 2014

The Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division receives hundreds of calls and consumer complaints every year. Follow these tips to avoid unexpected expense and disappointments. This record is about: The Drive to Destroy: Removing data from computer hard drives, storage devices & wireless phones