Evaluation of Different Methods to Calculate Heavy-Truck VMT, Final Report, December 2004

Reliable estimates of heavy-truck volumes are important in a number of transportation applications. Estimates of truck volumes are necessary for pavement design and pavement management. Truck volumes are important in traffic safety. The number of trucks on the road also influences roadway capacity and traffic operations. Additionally, heavy vehicles pollute at higher rates than passenger vehicles. Consequently, reliable estimates of heavy-truck vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are important in creating accurate inventories of on-road emissions. This research evaluated three different methods to calculate heavy-truck annual average daily traffic (AADT) which can subsequently be used to estimate vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Traffic data from continuous count stations provided by the Iowa DOT were used to estimate AADT for two different truck groups (single-unit and multi-unit) using the three methods. The first method developed monthly and daily expansion factors for each truck group. The second and third methods created general expansion factors for all vehicles. Accuracy of the three methods was compared using n-fold cross-validation. In n-fold cross-validation, data are split into n partitions, and data from the nth partition are used to validate the remaining data. A comparison of the accuracy of the three methods was made using the estimates of prediction error obtained from cross-validation. The prediction error was determined by averaging the squared error between the estimated AADT and the actual AADT. Overall, the prediction error was the lowest for the method that developed expansion factors separately for the different truck groups for both single- and multi-unit trucks. This indicates that use of expansion factors specific to heavy trucks results in better estimates of AADT, and, subsequently, VMT, than using aggregate expansion factors and applying a percentage of trucks. Monthly, daily, and weekly traffic patterns were also evaluated. Significant variation exists in the temporal and seasonal patterns of heavy trucks as compared to passenger vehicles. This suggests that the use of aggregate expansion factors fails to adequately describe truck travel patterns.

Iowa Commuting Patterns, 2000

A century ago, the majority of workers were employed near their homes—on farms or in cities and towns. As industrialization increased and suburbs surrounded central cities, commuting meant going from homes in suburbs to jobs in cities. Today, there is a growing trend of workers commuting between suburbs. On any given day, 61,775 workers commute to jobs in Iowa counties other than the one in which they live. The most important reason for increased commuting has been employment growth. Rising incomes and the growth of suburbs have also been factors. In the past, the increased employment of women added to the number of commuters. Commuting patterns are a key consideration in transportation planning. In more urban states than Iowa, there is concern that the use of mass transit continues to decline. In Iowa, where so much of our commuting is between counties, private vehicles are often the only practical means of getting to and from work. On any given day, 1,155,008 single-occupancy vehicles are driven to and from jobs somewhere in Iowa. At the same time, an additional158,699 workers share rides by participating in carpools.

Rivers Regional Patterns in Historic Data

A report produced by the Department of Natural Resources on the historical pattern the rivers take.

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.