Evaluation of Control Structures for Stabilizing Degrading Stream Channels in Western Iowa, Phases II and III, HR-208A, 1985

Since the turn of the century, tributaries to the Missouri River in western Iowa have entrenched their channels to as much as six times their original depth. This channel degradation is accompanied by widening as the channel side slopes become unstable and landslides occur. The deepening and widening of these streams have endangered about 25% of the highway bridges in 13 counties [Lohnes et al. 1980]. Grade stabilization structures have been recommended as the most effective remedial measure for stream degradation [Brice et al., 1978]. In western Iowa, within the last seven years, reinforced concrete grade stabilization structures have cost between $300,000 and $1,200,000. Recognizing that the high cost of these structures may be prohibitive in many situations, the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) sponsored a study at Iowa State University (ISU) to find low-cost alternative structures. This was Phase I of the stream degradation study. Analytical and laboratory work led to the conclusion that alternative construction materials such as gabions and soil-cement might result in more economical structures [Lohnes et al. 1980]. The ISU study also recommended that six experimental structures be built and their performance evaluated. Phase II involved the design of the demonstration structures, and Phase III included monitoring and evaluating their performance.

Evaluation of control devices for asphalt pavement recycling operations : summary report for research project HR-188, 1982

The objective of the research project was to seek acceptable solutions to the air pollution problem created in the asphalt recycling process using modified conventional equipment.

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.

Tree and Brush Control For County Road Right-of-Way, Ocotober 2002

This manual summarizes the roadside tree and brush control methods used by all of Iowa's 99 counties. It is based on interviews conducted in Spring 2002 with county engineers, roadside managers and others. The target audience of this manual is the novice county engineer or roadside manager. Iowa law is nearly silent on roadside tree and brush control, so individual counties have been left to decide on the level of control they want to achieve and maintain. Different solutions have been developed but the goal of every county remains the same: to provide safe roads for the traveling public. Counties in eastern and southern Iowa appear to face the greatest brush control challenge. Most control efforts can be divided into two categories: mechanical and chemical. Mechanical control includes cutting tools and supporting equipment. A chain saw is the most widely used cutting tool. Tractor mounted boom mowers and brush cutters are used to prune miles of brush but have significant safety and aesthetic limitations and boom mowers are easily broken by inexperienced operators. The advent of tree shears and hydraulic thumbs offer unprecedented versatility. Bulldozers are often considered a method of last resort since they reduce large areas to bare ground. Any chipper that violently grabs brush should not be used. Chemical control is the application of herbicide to different parts of a plant: foliar spray is applied to leaves; basal bark spray is applied to the tree trunk; a cut stump treatment is applied to the cambium ring of a cut surface. There is reluctance by many to apply herbicide into the air due to drift concerns. One-third of Iowa counties do not use foliar spray. By contrast, several accepted control methods are directed toward the ground. Freshly cut stumps should be treated to prevent resprouting. Basal bark spray is highly effective in sensitive areas such as near houses. Interest in chemical control is slowly increasing as herbicides and application methods are refined. Fall burning, a third, distinctly separate technique is underused as a brush control method and can be effective if timed correctly. In all, control methods tend to reflect agricultural patterns in a county. The use of chain saws and foliar sprays tends to increase in counties where row crops predominate, and boom mowing tends to increase in counties where grassland predominates. For counties with light to moderate roadside brush, rotational maintenance is the key to effective control. The most comprehensive approach to control is to implement an integrated roadside vegetation management (IRVM) program. An IRVM program is usually directed by a Roadside Manager whose duties may be shared with another position. Funding for control programs comes from the Rural Services Basic portion of a county's budget. The average annual county brush control budget is about $76,000. That figure is thought not to include shared expenses such as fuel and buildings. Start up costs for an IRVM program are less if an existing control program is converted. In addition, IRVM budgets from three different northeastern Iowa counties are offered for comparison in this manual. The manual also includes a chapter on temporary traffic control in rural work zones, a summary of the Iowa Code as it relates to brush control, and rules on avoiding seasonal disturbance of the endangered Indiana bat. Appendices summarize survey and forest cover data, an equipment inventory, sample forms for record keeping, a sample brush control policy, a few legal opinions, a literature search, and a glossary.

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.

The History of the Establishment of the Division of Child Welfare of the Social Welfare Department of the State of Iowa, 1938

History of Child Welfare Legislation in the State of Iowa 1838-1898; Establishment of the Iowa State board of Control in 1898 and its influence on Child Welfare Legislation until 1925; Immediate background, organizing and the administration functions of the Child Welfare Division of the Social Welfare Department of the State of Iowa. NOTE: This document has pagination errors.

Control Structures for Stabilizing Degrading Stream Channels Pottawattamie County, HR-236, 1987

Stream degradation due to steep stream gradients and large deposits of loess soil is a serious problem in western Iowa. One solution to this problem is to construct grade stabilization structures at critical points along the length of the stream. Iowa Highway Research Board project HR-236, "Pottawattamie County Evaluation of Control Structures for Stabilizing Degrading Stream Channels", was initiated in order to study the effectiveness of such structures in preventing stream degradation. This report describes the construction and 4-year performance of a gabion drop structure constructed along Keg Creek during the winter of 1982-83.

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.

Iowa System of Bridge Deck Rehabilitation with Cathodic Protection, HR-1044, 1986

Bridge deck and substructure deterioration due to the corrosive effects of deicing chemicals on reinforcing steel is a problem facing many transportation agencies. The main concern is protection of older bridges with uncoated reinforcing steel. Many different methods have been tried over the past years to repair bridge decks. The Iowa system of bridge deck rehabilitation has proven to be very effective. It consists of scarifying the deck surface, removing any deteriorated concrete, and overlaying with low slump dense concrete. Another rehabilitation method that has emerged is cathodic protection. It has been used for many years in the protection of underground pipelines and in 1973 was first installed on a bridge deck. Cathodic protection works by applying an external source of direct current to the embedded reinforcing steel, thereby changing the electrochemical process of corrosion. The corroding steel, which is anodic, is protected by changing it to a cathodic state. The technology involved in cathodic protection as applied to bridge decks has improved over the last 12 years. One company marketing new technology in cathodic protection systems is Raychem Corporation of Menlo Park, California. Their system utilizes a Ferex anode mesh that distributes the impressed direct current over the deck surface. Ferex mesh was selected because it seemed readily adaptable to the Iowa system of bridge deck rehabilitation. The bridge deck would be scarified, deteriorated concrete removed, Ferex anode mesh installed, and overlaid with low slump dense concrete. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) promotes cathodic protection under Demonstration Project No. 34, "Cathodic Protection for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks."

Iowa Study of No Passing Zone Signing, 1962

This report is compiled from data gathered by interviewing motorists to sample their opinion of Iowa's method of supplementing the yellow barrier line pavement marking of no passing zones on primary highways with yellow pennant shaped "No Passing Zone" signs mounted on the left shoulder of the highway. The effective designation of no passing zones is one form of control that can contribute to a reduction in the number of fatal high-speed head-on collisions resulting from passing in areas which do not afford sufficient sight distance of approaching traffic. It is the purpose of this report to present an evaluation of the Iowa "No Passing Zone" sign by individuals from all states who have traveled on Iowa's primary highways and who must obey the no passing zone restrictions and be warned by this sign of the presence of the zones. The "No Passing Zone" sign was formulated and approved by the Governor's Safety Committee a short time prior to the experimental erection of the signs. The Governor's Safety Committee adopted this sign as they felt that such a sign should be distinctive (not similar to any other type of sign) and easily visible to a driver attempting a passing maneuver.