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.

Iowa Traffic Control Devices and Pavement Markings: A Manual for Cities and Counties April 2001

Iowa Traffic Control Devices and Pavement Markings: A Manual for Cities and Counties has been developed to provide state and local transportation agencies with suggestions and examples related to traffic control devices and pavement markings. Both rural and urban applications are included. The primary source of information for this document is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), but many additional references have also been used. A complete listing of these is included in the appendix to this manual, and the reader is invited to consult these references for more in-depth information. The contents of this manual are not intended to represent standard practice or to imply legal requirements for installation in any particular manner. This document should be used as a supplement to the MUTCD, not as a substitute for any requirements contained therein. Engineering judgement should be applied to all decisions regarding traffic control devices and pavement markings. All references to the MUTCD in this manual apply to the millennium edition. The reader should be aware that many millennium revisions are allowed phase-in periods by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), ranging from two to ten years. These extended compliance periods should be considered when making decisions regarding traffic control devices and pavement markings. A new addition to the MUTCD, Part 5, “Traffic Control Devices for Low-Volume Roads,” also contains valuable recommendations for signing and marking low volume roads. This manual is presented in an easy to use threering format. Topics included in the complete guide manual may not apply to all jurisdictions and can easily be removed or modified as desired. Desired millennium MUTCD sections may be added for quick reference using the divider at the end of this document. Contents may also be available on CD-ROM in the future.

Development of a Traffic Control Devices and Pavement Markings Manual for Iowa's Cities and Counties with a Survery of Common Practices, April 2001

Transportation agencies in Iowa are responsible for a significant public investment with the installation and maintenance of traffic control devices and pavement markings. Included in this investment are thousands of signs and other inventory items, equipment, facilities, and staff. The proper application of traffic control devices and pavement markings is critical to public safety on streets and highways, and local governments have a prescribed responsibility under the Code of Iowa to properly manage these assets. This research report addresses current traffic control and pavement marking application, maintenance, and management in Iowa.

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.

Evaluation of traffic control devices for rural high-speed maintenance work zones.

Texas Department of Transportation, Research and Technology Transfer Office, Austin

Visibility requirements of work zone traffic control devices. Final report.

Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.

Improving the highway system by upgrading and optimizing traffic control devices. Final report.

Mode of access: Internet.

Guidelines for flashing traffic control devices. Final report.

Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.

Public understanding of traffic control devices in Texas. Final report.

Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Transportation Planning Division, Austin

Manual on uniform traffic control devices for streets and highways.

Updated by continuing supplements and cumulated irregularly.

Illinois supplement to the national manual on uniform traffic control devices.

"Adopted March 1990."

Illinois supplement to the national manual on uniform traffic control devices /

"March 10, 2011."--cover letter.

Quality standard for work zone traffic control devices, 1998.

These standards, covering highway work zone traffic control devices, were developed for suppliers and contractors doing work for the Illinois Dept. of Transportation.

National practices for the operation and protection of school zones and crossings; an informational report by Committee on Traffic, Subcommittee on Traffic Control Devices in cooperation with Colorado Department of Highways.

Cover title.

Liability and Traffic Control Considerations for Low Water Stream Crossings, HR-218, 1981

The current shortage of highway funds precludes the immediate replacement of most of the bridges that have been evaluated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete or both. A low water stream crossing (LWSC) affords an economical alternative to the replacement of a bridge with another bridge in many instances. However, the potential liability that might be incurred from the use of LWSCs has served as a deterrent to their use. Nor have guidelines for traffic control devices been developed for specific application to LWSCs. This research addressed the problems of liability and traffic control associated with the use of LWSCs. Input to the findings from this research was provided by several persons contacted by telephone plus 189 persons who responded to a questionnaire concerning their experience with LWSCs. It was concluded from this research that a significant potential for accidents and liability claims could result from the use of LWSCs. However, it was also concluded that this liability could be reduced to within acceptable limits if adequate warning of the presence of an LWSC were afforded to road users. The potential for accidents and liability could further be reduced if vehicular passage over an LWSC were precluded during periods when the road was flooded. Under these conditions, it is believed, the potential for liability from the use of an LWSC on an unpaved, rural road would be even less than that resulting from the continuing use of an inadequate bridge. The signs recommended for use in advance of an LWSC include two warning signs and one regulatory sign with legends as follows: FLOOD AREA AHEAD, IMPASSABLE DURING HIGH WATER, DO NOT ENTER WHEN FLOODED. Use of the regulatory sign would require an appropriate resolution by the Board of Supervisors having responsibility for a county road. Other recommendations include the optional use of either a supple mental distance advisory plate or an advisory speed plate, or both, under circumstances where these may be needed. It was also recommended HR-218 Liability & Traffic Control Considerations for Low Water Stream Crossings that LWSCs be used only on unpaved roads and that they not be used in locations where flooding of an LWSC would deprive dwelling places of emergency ground access.