Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 1988

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 1990

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 1992

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 1994

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 1996

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 1998

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 2000

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 2002

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 2004

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 2006

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

Vehicular Traffic Flow Map, 2008

Traffic volumes represented on this map are annual average daily traffic volumes between major traffic generators: highway junctions and cities.

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.

Simulation and Analysis of Arterial Traffic Operations Along the U.S. 61 Corridor in Burlington, Iowa, 1998

The Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE) used the traffic simulation model CORSIM to access proposed capacity and safety improvement strategies for the U.S. 61 corridor through Burlington, Iowa. The comparison between the base and alternative models allow for evaluation of the traffic flow performance under the existing conditions as well as other design scenarios. The models also provide visualization of performance for interpretation by technical staff, public policy makers, and the public. The objectives of this project are to evaluate the use of traffic simulation models for future use by the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) and to develop procedures for employing simulation modeling to conduct the analysis of alternative designs. This report presents both the findings of the U.S. 61 evaluation and an overview of model development procedures. The first part of the report includes the simulation modeling development procedures. The simulation analysis is illustrated through the Burlington U.S. 61 corridor case study application. Part I is not intended to be a user manual but simply introductory guidelines for traffic simulation modeling. Part II of the report evaluates the proposed improvement concepts in a side by side comparison of the base and alternative models.

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.

Traffic Management Strategies for Merge Area in Rural Interstate Work Zones, CTRE 97-12, 1999

The Iowa Department of Transportation, like many other state transportation agencies, is experiencing growing congestion and traffic delays in work zones on rural interstate highways. The congestion results in unproductive and wasteful delays for both motorists and commercial vehicles. It also results in hazardous conditions where vehicle stopped in queues on rural interstate highways are being approached by vehicles upstream at very high speeds. The delays also result in driver frustration, making some drivers willing to take unsafe risks in an effort to bypass delays. To reduce the safety hazards and unproductive delays of congested rural interstate work zones, the Iowa Department of Transportation would like to improve its traffic management strategies at these locations. Applying better management practices requires knowledge of the traffic flow properties and driver behavior in and around work zones, and knowledge of possible management strategies. The project reported here and in a companion report documents research which seeks to better understand traffic flow behavior at rural interstate highway work zones and to estimate the traffic carrying capacity of work zone lane closures. In addition, this document also reports on technology available to better manage traffic in and around work zones.