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.

Final Report-Freeway Operations Analysis of I-80 to I-29 Interchange, January 1974

A t the request of the Iowa State Highway Commission, the Engineering Research Institute observed the traffic operations at the Interstate 29 (1-29) and Interstate 80 (1-80) interchange in the southwest part of Council Bluffs. The general location of the site is shown in Figure 1. Before limiting the analysis to the diverging area the project staff drove the entire Council Bluffs freeway system and consulted with M r . Philip Hassenstab (Iowa State Highway Commission, District 4, Resident Maintenance Engineer at Council Bluffs). The final study scope was delineated as encompassing only the operational characteristics of the diverge area where 1-29 South and 1-80 East divide and the ramp to merge area where 1-80 West joins 1-29 North (both areas being contained within the aforementioned interchange). Supplementing the traffic operations scope, was an effort to delineate and document the applicability of video-tape techniques to traffic engineering studies and analyses. Documentation was primarily in the form of a demonstration video-tape.

Record of Decision Council Bluffs Interstate System (I-29, I-80 and I-480) Improvements Project TIER 1 Environmental Impact Statement Council Bluffs, Iowa to Omaha, Nebraska FHWA-IA- EIS-04-01F Project Number: IM-029-3(62)54—13-78 Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(c) and 49 USC 303, October 2008

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approves the selection of the Reconstruction of All or Part of the Interstate (Construction Alternative) as the Preferred Alternative to provide improvements to the interstate system in the Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area, extending across the Missouri River on Interstate 80 to east of the Interstate 480 interchange in Omaha, Nebraska. The study considered long-term, broad-based transportation improvements along Interstate I-29 (I-29), I-80, and I-480, including approximately 18 mainline miles of interstate and 14 interchanges (3 system, 11 service), that would add capacity and correct functional issues along the mainline and interchanges and upgrade the I-80 Missouri River Crossing. FHWA also approves the decisions to provide full access between West Broadway and I-29, design the I-80/I-29 overlap section as a dual-divided freeway, and locating the new I-80 Missouri River Bridge north of the existing bridge. Improvements to the interstate system, once implemented, would bring the segments of I-80 and I-29 (see Figure 1) up to current engineering standards and accommodate future traffic needs. This Record of Decision (ROD) concludes Tier 1 of the Council Bluffs Interstate System (CBIS) Improvements Project. Tier 1 included an examination of the area’s transportation needs, a study of alternatives to satisfy them, and broad consideration of potential environmental and social impacts. The Tier 1 evaluation consisted of a sufficient level of engineering and environmental detail to assist decision makers in selecting a preferred transportation strategy. During Tier 1 a Draft EIS (FHWA-IA- EIS-04-01D) was developed which was approved by FHWA, Iowa DOT, and Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) in November 2004 with comments accepted through March 15, 2005. The Draft EIS summarized the alternatives that were considered to address the transportation needs around Council Bluffs; identified reconstruction of all or part of the interstate, the “Construction Alternative,” as the Preferred Alternative; identified three system-level decisions that needed to be made at the Tier 1 level; and invited comment on the issues. The Final EIS (FHWA-IA- EIS-04-01F) further documented the Construction Alternative as the Preferred Alternative and identified the recommended decisions for the three system level decisions that needed to be made in Tier 1. This ROD defines the Selected Alternative determined in the Tier 1 studies.

A Comparison of Mobile Scanning to a Total Station Survey at the I-35 and IA 92 Interchange in Warren County, Iowa, August 15, 2012

The purpose of this project was to investigate the potential for collecting and using data from mobile terrestrial laser scanning (MTLS) technology that would reduce the need for traditional survey methods for the development of highway improvement projects at the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT). The primary interest in investigating mobile scanning technology is to minimize the exposure of field surveyors to dangerous high volume traffic situations. Issues investigated were cost, timeframe, accuracy, contracting specifications, data capture extents, data extraction capabilities and data storage issues associated with mobile scanning. The project area selected for evaluation was the I-35/IA 92 interchange in Warren County, Iowa. This project covers approximately one mile of I-35, one mile of IA 92, 4 interchange ramps, and bridges within these limits. Delivered LAS and image files for this project totaled almost 31GB. There is nearly a 6-fold increase in the size of the scan data after post-processing. Camera data, when enabled, produced approximately 900MB of imagery data per mile using a 2- camera, 5 megapixel system. A comparison was done between 1823 points on the pavement that were surveyed by Iowa DOT staff using a total station and the same points generated through the MTLS process. The data acquired through the MTLS and data processing met the Iowa DOT specifications for engineering survey. A list of benefits and challenges is included in the detailed report. With the success of this project, it is anticipate[d] that additional projects will be scanned for the Iowa DOT for use in the development of highway improvement projects.

Use of Incentive/Disincentive Contracting to Mitigate Work Zone Traffic Impacts, 2012

Incentive/disincentive clauses (I/D) are designed to award payments to contractors if they complete work ahead of schedule and to deduct payments if they exceed the completion time. A previously unanswered question is, “Did the costs of the actual work zone impacts that were avoided justify the incentives paid?” This report answers that question affirmatively based on an evaluation of 20 I/D projects in Missouri from 2008 to 2011. Road user costs (RUC) were used to quantify work zone impacts and included travel delays, vehicle operating costs, and crash costs. These were computed using work zone traffic conditions for partial-closure projects and detour volumes and routes for full-closure projects. Conditions during construction were compared to after construction. Crash costs were computed using Highway Safety Manual methodology. Safety Performance Functions produced annual crash frequencies that were translated into crash cost savings. In considering an average project, the percentage of RUC savings was around 13% of the total contract amount, or $444,389 of $3,464,620. The net RUC savings produced was around $7.2 million after subtracting the approximately $1.7 million paid in incentives. In other words, for every dollar paid in incentives, approximately 5.3 dollars of RUC savings resulted. I/D provisions were very successful in saving RUC for projects with full-closure, projects in urban areas, and emergency projects. Rural, non-emergency projects successfully saved RUC but not at the same level as other projects. The I/D contracts were also compared to all Missouri Department of Transportation contracts for the same time period. The results show that I/D projects had a higher on-time completion percentage and a higher number of bids per call than average projects. But I/D projects resulted in 4.52% higher deviation from programmed costs and possibly more changes made after the award. A survey of state transportation departments and contractors showed that both agreed to the same issues that affect the success of I/D contracts. Legal analysis suggests that liquidated damages is preferred to disincentives, since enforceability of disincentives may be an issue. Overall, in terms of work zone impact mitigation, I/D contracts are very effective at a relatively low cost.

Road Safety Audit for I-380 through the Cities of Cedar Rapids and Hiawatha in Linn County, Iowa, 2009

Interstate 380 (I-380) through Cedar Rapids and Hiawatha, Iowa, is a multilane divided urban freeway that was constructed in 1976 to the Cedar River and in 1981 from that point northerly. Traffic volumes vary from 47,000 to 83,500 vehicles per day, with about 8%–15% trucks and buses. Based on concern for the high number of crash incidents, particularly serious crashes, and increased traffic volumes on this roadway, the City of Cedar Rapids and the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) District 6 Office requested that a road safety audit be conducted for this roadway section. Representatives from the Iowa DOT, Federal Highway Administration, Center for Transportation Research and Education, local law enforcement, local government, and area businesses met to review crash data and discuss potential safety improvements to this segment of I-380. This report outlines the findings and recommendations of the road safety audit team for addressing the safety concerns on this I-380 corridor and explains several selected mitigation strategies.