Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 1988

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 1990

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 1992

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 1994

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 1996

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 1998

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 2000

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 2002

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 2004

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 2006

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 2008

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Child Passenger Safety Guide, May 2006

The left side of this guide outlines Iowa’s Child Restraint Law. The right side of this guide outlines National Safety Recommendations. El lado izquierdo describe la ley de proteccion vehicular para los niños El lado derecho describe las recomendaciones de la oficina National Safety

Development and Demonstration of a Freezing Drizzle Algorithm for Roadway Environmental Sensing Systems, Final Report, October 2012

The primary goal of this project is to demonstrate the accuracy and utility of a freezing drizzle algorithm that can be implemented on roadway environmental sensing systems (ESSs). The types of problems related to the occurrence of freezing precipitation range from simple traffic delays to major accidents that involve fatalities. Freezing drizzle can also lead to economic impacts in communities with lost work hours, vehicular damage, and downed power lines. There are means for transportation agencies to perform preventive and reactive treatments to roadways, but freezing drizzle can be difficult to forecast accurately or even detect as weather radar and surface observation networks poorly observe these conditions. The detection of freezing precipitation is problematic and requires special instrumentation and analysis. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) development of aircraft anti-icing and deicing technologies has led to the development of a freezing drizzle algorithm that utilizes air temperature data and a specialized sensor capable of detecting ice accretion. However, at present, roadway ESSs are not capable of reporting freezing drizzle. This study investigates the use of the methods developed for the FAA and the National Weather Service (NWS) within a roadway environment to detect the occurrence of freezing drizzle using a combination of icing detection equipment and available ESS sensors. The work performed in this study incorporated the algorithm developed initially and further modified for work with the FAA for aircraft icing. The freezing drizzle algorithm developed for the FAA was applied using data from standard roadway ESSs. The work performed in this study lays the foundation for addressing the central question of interest to winter maintenance professionals as to whether it is possible to use roadside freezing precipitation detection (e.g., icing detection) sensors to determine the occurrence of pavement icing during freezing precipitation events and the rates at which this occurs.

Liability and Traffic Control Considerations for Low Water Stream Crossings, HR-218, 1981

The current shortage of highway funds precludes the immediate replacement of most of the bridges that have been evaluated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete or both. A low water stream crossing (LWSC) affords an economical alternative to the replacement of a bridge with another bridge in many instances. However, the potential liability that might be incurred from the use of LWSCs has served as a deterrent to their use. Nor have guidelines for traffic control devices been developed for specific application to LWSCs. This research addressed the problems of liability and traffic control associated with the use of LWSCs. Input to the findings from this research was provided by several persons contacted by telephone plus 189 persons who responded to a questionnaire concerning their experience with LWSCs. It was concluded from this research that a significant potential for accidents and liability claims could result from the use of LWSCs. However, it was also concluded that this liability could be reduced to within acceptable limits if adequate warning of the presence of an LWSC were afforded to road users. The potential for accidents and liability could further be reduced if vehicular passage over an LWSC were precluded during periods when the road was flooded. Under these conditions, it is believed, the potential for liability from the use of an LWSC on an unpaved, rural road would be even less than that resulting from the continuing use of an inadequate bridge. The signs recommended for use in advance of an LWSC include two warning signs and one regulatory sign with legends as follows: FLOOD AREA AHEAD, IMPASSABLE DURING HIGH WATER, DO NOT ENTER WHEN FLOODED. Use of the regulatory sign would require an appropriate resolution by the Board of Supervisors having responsibility for a county road. Other recommendations include the optional use of either a supple mental distance advisory plate or an advisory speed plate, or both, under circumstances where these may be needed. It was also recommended HR-218 Liability & Traffic Control Considerations for Low Water Stream Crossings that LWSCs be used only on unpaved roads and that they not be used in locations where flooding of an LWSC would deprive dwelling places of emergency ground access.

Portable School Stop Signs and Other Non-Uniform School Stop Control Devices, HR-190, 1978

Portable (roll-out) stop signs are used at school crossings in over 300 cities in Iowa. Their use conforms to the Code of Iowa, although it is not consistent with the provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices adopted for nationwide application. A survey indicated that most users in Iowa believe that portable stop signs provide effective protection at school crossings, and favor their continued use. Other non-uniform signs that fold or rotate to display a STOP message only during certain hours are used at school crossings in over 60 cities in Iowa. Their use does not conform to either the Code of Iowa or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Users of these devices also tend to favor their continued use. A survey of other states indicated that use of temporary devices similar to those used in Iowa is not generally sanctioned. Some unsanctioned use apparently occurs in several states, however. A different type of portable stop sign for school crossings is authorized and widely used in one state. Portable stop signs similar to those used in Iowa are authorized in another state, although their use is quite limited. A few reports in the literature reviewed for this research discussed the use of portable stop signs. The authors of these reports uniformly recommended against the use of portable or temporary traffic control devices. Various reasons for this recommendation were given, although data to support the recommendation were not offered. As part of this research, field surveys were conducted at 54 locations in 33 communities where temporary stop control devices were in use at school crossings. Research personnel observed the obedience to stop control and measured the vehicular delay incurred. Stopped delay averaged 1.89 seconds/entering vehicle. Only 36.6 percent of the vehicles were observed to come to a complete stop at the study locations controlled by temporary stop control devices. However, this level of obedience does not differ from that observed at intersections controlled by permanent stop signs. Accident experience was compiled for 76 intersections in 33 communities in Iowa where temporary stop signs were used and, for comparative purposes, at 76 comparable intersections having other forms of control or operating without stop control. There were no significant differences in accident experience An economic analysis of vehicle operating costs, delay costs, and other costs indicated that temporary stop control generated costs only about 12 percent as great as permanent stop control for a street having a school crossing. Midblock pedestrian-actuated signals were shown to be cost effective in comparison with temporary stop signs under the conditions of use assumed. Such signals could be used effectively at a number of locations where temporary stop signs are being used. The results of this research do not provide a basis for recommending that use of portable stop signs be prohibited. However, erratic patterns of use of these devices and inadequate designs suggest that improved standards for their use are needed. Accordingly, nine recommendations are presented to enhance the efficiency of vehicular flow at school crossings, without causing a decline in the level of pedestrian protection being afforded.