Impacts on Safety of Left-Turn Treatment at High Speed Signalized Intersections, HR-347, 1994

Left-turning traffic is a major source of conflicts at intersections. Though an average of only 10% to 15% of all approach traffic turns left, these vehicles are involved in approximately 45% of all accidents. This report presents the results of research conducted to develop models which estimate approach accident rates at high speed signalized intersections. The objective of the research was to quantify the relationship between traffic and intersection characteristics, and accident potential of different left turn treatments. Geometric, turning movement counts, and traffic signal phasing data were collected at 100 intersections in Iowa using a questionnaire sent to municipalities. Not all questionnaires resulted in complete data and ultimately complete data were derived for 63 intersections providing a database of 248 approaches. Accident data for the same approaches were obtained from the Iowa Department of Transportation Accident Location and Analysis System (ALAS). Regression models were developed for two different dependent variables: 1) the ratio of the number of left turn accidents per approach to million left turning vehicles per approach, and 2) the ratio of accidents per approach to million traffic movements per approach. A number of regression models were developed for both dependent variables. One model using each dependent variable was developed for intersections with low, medium, and high left turning traffic volumes. As expected, the research indicates that protected left turn phasing has a lower accident potential than protected/permitted or permitted phasing. Left turn lanes and multiple lane approaches are beneficial for reducing accident rates, while raised medians increase the likelihood of accidents. Signals that are part of a signal system tend to have lower accident rates than isolated signals. The resulting regression models may be used to determine the likely impact of various left turn treatments on intersection accident rates. When designing an intersection approach, a traffic engineer may use the models to estimate the accident rate reduction as a result of improved lane configurations and left turn treatments. The safety benefits may then be compared to any costs associated with operational effects to the intersection (i.e., increased delay) to determine the benefits and costs of making intersection safety improvements.

Concrete Pavement Mixture Design and Analysis (MDA): Development and Evaluation of Vibrating Kelly Ball Test (VKelly Test) for the Workability of Concrete, 2015

Due to the low workability of slipform concrete mixtures, the science of rheology is not strictly applicable for such concrete. However, the concept of rheological behavior may still be considered useful. A novel workability test method (Vibrating Kelly Ball or VKelly test) that would quantitatively assess the responsiveness of a dry concrete mixture to vibration, as is desired of a mixture suitable for slipform paving, was developed and evaluated. The objectives of this test method are for it to be cost-effective, portable, and repeatable while reporting the suitability of a mixture for use in slipform paving. The work to evaluate and refine the test was conducted in three phases: 1. Assess whether the VKelly test can signal variations in laboratory mixtures with a range of materials and proportions 2. Run the VKelly test in the field at a number of construction sites 3. Validate the VKelly test results using the Box Test developed at Oklahoma State University for slipform paving concrete The data collected to date indicate that the VKelly test appears to be suitable for assessing a mixture’s response to vibration (workability) with a low multiple operator variability. A unique parameter, VKelly Index, is introduced and defined that seems to indicate that a mixture is suitable for slipform paving when it falls in the range of 0.8 to 1.2 in./√s.

Total Cost of Transportation Analysis of Road and Highway Issues, HR-388, 2002

In the administration, planning, design, and maintenance of road systems, transportation professionals often need to choose between alternatives, justify decisions, evaluate tradeoffs, determine how much to spend, set priorities, assess how well the network meets traveler needs, and communicate the basis for their actions to others. A variety of technical guidelines, tools, and methods have been developed to help with these activities. Such work aids include design criteria guidelines, design exception analysis methods, needs studies, revenue allocation schemes, regional planning guides, designation of minimum standards, sufficiency ratings, management systems, point based systems to determine eligibility for paving, functional classification, and bridge ratings. While such tools play valuable roles, they also manifest a number of deficiencies and are poorly integrated. Design guides tell what solutions MAY be used, they aren't oriented towards helping find which one SHOULD be used. Design exception methods help justify deviation from design guide requirements but omit consideration of important factors. Resource distribution is too often based on dividing up what's available rather than helping determine how much should be spent. Point systems serve well as procedural tools but are employed primarily to justify decisions that have already been made. In addition, the tools aren't very scalable: a system level method of analysis seldom works at the project level and vice versa. In conjunction with the issues cited above, the operation and financing of the road and highway system is often the subject of criticisms that raise fundamental questions: What is the best way to determine how much money should be spent on a city or a county's road network? Is the size and quality of the rural road system appropriate? Is too much or too little money spent on road work? What parts of the system should be upgraded and in what sequence? Do truckers receive a hidden subsidy from other motorists? Do transportation professions evaluate road situations from too narrow of a perspective? In considering the issues and questions the author concluded that it would be of value if one could identify and develop a new method that would overcome the shortcomings of existing methods, be scalable, be capable of being understood by the general public, and utilize a broad viewpoint. After trying out a number of concepts, it appeared that a good approach would be to view the road network as a sub-component of a much larger system that also includes vehicles, people, goods-in-transit, and all the ancillary items needed to make the system function. Highway investment decisions could then be made on the basis of how they affect the total cost of operating the total system. A concept, named the "Total Cost of Transportation" method, was then developed and tested. The concept rests on four key principles: 1) that roads are but one sub-system of a much larger 'Road Based Transportation System', 2) that the size and activity level of the overall system are determined by market forces, 3) that the sum of everything expended, consumed, given up, or permanently reserved in building the system and generating the activity that results from the market forces represents the total cost of transportation, and 4) that the economic purpose of making road improvements is to minimize that total cost. To test the practical value of the theory, a special database and spreadsheet model of Iowa's county road network was developed. This involved creating a physical model to represent the size, characteristics, activity levels, and the rates at which the activities take place, developing a companion economic cost model, then using the two in tandem to explore a variety of issues. Ultimately, the theory and model proved capable of being used in full system, partial system, single segment, project, and general design guide levels of analysis. The method appeared to be capable of remedying many of the existing work method defects and to answer society's transportation questions from a new perspective.