Evaluation of 1977 Asphalt Concrete Sprinkle Treatments, December 1980

Iowa's first sprinkle treatment in 1974 was applied to a short section of old US 30 west of Ames. A roll type seal coat spreader was used to apply several types of sprinkle aggregates. The following year a spinner type tailgate spreader was used for sprinkle application of an Iowa 7 project in Webster County. Uniform spreading and tire marks were problems in these early projects. A special spinner spreader was built in 1976 and mounted on a truck specially equipped with smooth tires. This special unit was tested in early 1977 on a project that had been scheduled for 1976. Spinner type spreaders proved unacceptable due to non-uniformity of spreading.

Analysis of Existing Work-Zone Devices with MASH Safety Performance Criteria, TPF-5(018), 2009

Crashworthy, work-zone, portable sign support systems accepted under NCHRP Report No. 350 were analyzed to predict their safety peformance according to the TL-3 MASH evaluation criteria. An analysis was conducted to determine which hardware parameters of sign support systems would likely contribute to the safety performance with MASH. The acuracy of the method was evaluated through full-scale crash testing. Four full-scale crash tests were conducted with a pickup truck. Two tall-mounted, sign support systems with aluminum sign panels failed the MASH criteria due to windshield penetration. One low-mounted system with a vinyl, roll-up sign panel failed the MASH criteria due to windshield and floorboard penetration. Another low-mounted system with an aluminum sign panel successfully met the MASH criteria. Four full-scale crash tests were conducted with a small passenger car. The low-mounted tripod system with an aluminum sign panel failed the MASH criteria due to windshield penetration. One low-mounted system with aluminum sign panel failed the MASH criteria due to excessive windshield deformation, and another similar system passed the MASH criteria. The low-mounted system with a vinyl, roll-up sign panel successfully met the MASH criteria. Hardware parameters of work-zone sign support systems that were determined to be important for failure with MASH include sign panel material, the height to the top of the mast, the presence of flags, sign-locking mechanism, base layout and system orientation. Flowcharts were provided to assist manufacturers when designing new sign support systems.

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.