Field Evaluation of Alternative Load Transfer Device Locations in Low Traffic Volume Pavements, TR-420, 2003

In jointed portland cement concrete pavements, dowel bars are typically used to transfer loads between adjacent slabs. A common practice is for designers to place dowel bars at a certain, consistent spacing such that a sufficient number of dowels are available to effectively transfer anticipated loads. In many cases, however, the standards developed today for new highway construction simply do not reflect the design needs of low traffic volume, rural roads. The objective of this research was to evaluate the impact of the number of dowel bars and dowel location on joint performance and ultimately on pavement performance. For this research, test sections were designed, constructed, and tested in actual field service pavement. Test sections were developed to include areas with load transfer assemblies having three and four dowels in the outer wheel path only, areas with no joint reinforcement whatsoever, and full lane dowel basket assemblies as the control. Two adjacent paving projects provided both rural and urban settings and differing base materials. This report documents the approach to implementing the study and provides discussion and suggestions based on the results of the research. The research results indicate that the use of single three or four dowel basket assemblies in the outer wheel path is acceptable for use in low truck volume roads. In the case of roadways with relatively stiff bases such as asphalt treated or stabilized bases, the use of the three dowel bar pattern in the outside wheel path is expected to provide adequate performance over the design life of the pavement. In the case of untreated or granular bases, the results indicate that the use of the three or four dowel bar basket in both wheel paths provides the best long-term solution to load transfer and faulting measurements.

Empirical analysis of traffic volume for the application of the options theory to highway concessions

*************************************************************************************** EL WCTR es un Congreso de reconocido prestigio internacional en el ámbito de la investigación del transporte que hasta el 2010 publicaba sus libros de abstracts con ISBN. Por ello consideramos que debería seguir teníendose en cuenta para los indicadores de calidad ******************************************************************************************* Investment projects in the field of transportation infrastructures have a high degree of uncertainty and require an important amount of resources. In highway concessions in particular, the calculation of the Net Present Value (NPV) of the project by means of the discount of cash flows, may lead to erroneous results when the project incorporates certain flexibility. In these cases, the theory of real options is an alternative tool for the valuation of concessions. When the variable that generates uncertainty (in our case, the traffic) follows a random walk (or Geometric Brownian Motion), we can calculate the value of the options embedded in the contract starting directly from the process followed by that variable. This procedure notably simplifies the calculation method. In order to test the hypothesis of the evolution of traffic as a Geometric Brownian Motion, we have used the available series of traffic in Spanish highways, and we have applied the Augmented Dickey-Fuller approach, which is the most widely used test for this kind of study. The main result of the analysis is that we cannot reject the hypothesis that traffic follows a Geometric Brownian Motion in the majority of both toll highways and free highways in Spain.

Guide to urban traffic volume counting. Final report.

Federal Highway Administration, Urban Planning Division, Washington, D.C.

Truck traffic volume and weight data for 1971 and their evaluation. Final report.

Mode of access: Internet.

Motor vehicle accidents in relation to geometric and traffic features of highway intersections. Volume III - appendices. Final report.

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Motor vehicle accidents in relation to geometric and traffic features of highway intersections. Volume I - executive summary. Final report.

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Motor vehicle accidents in relation to geometric and traffic features of highway intersections. Volume II - research report. Final report.

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Computerized allocation of police traffic services; reference volume I. Computer-sensor system description. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Relationships between traffic conflicts and accidents, volume 2. Final report.

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

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.

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.

Bridge Rail and Approach Railing for Low-Volume Roads in Iowa, TR-592, 2010

Bridge rail and approach guardrails provide safety to drivers by shielding more hazardous objects and redirecting vehicles to the roadway. However, guardrail can increase both the initial cost and maintenance cost of a bridge, while adding another object that may be struck by vehicles. Most existing low volume road (LVR) bridges in the state of Iowa are currently indicated to not possess bridge rail meeting “current acceptable standards”. The primary objective of the research summarized in this report was to provide the nations bridge and approach rail state of practice and perform a state wide crash analysis on bridge rails and approach guardrails on LVR bridges in Iowa. In support of this objective, the criteria and guidelines used by other bridge owners were investigated, non-standard and innovative bridge and approach guardrails for LVR’s were investigated, and descriptive, statistical and economical analyses were performed on a state wide crash analysis. The state wide crash analysis found the overall number of crashes at/on the more than 17,000+ inventoried and non-inventoried LVR bridges in Iowa was fewer than 350 crashes over an eight year period, representing less than 0.1% of the statewide reportable crashes. In other words, LVR bridge crashes are fairly rare events. The majority of these crashes occurred on bridges with a traffic volume less than 100 vpd and width less than 24 ft. Similarly, the majority of the LVR bridges possess similar characteristics. Crash rates were highest for bridges with lower traffic volumes, narrower widths, and negative relative bridge widths (relative bridge width is defined as: bridge width minus roadway width). Crash rate did not appear to be effected by bridge length. Statistical analysis confirmed that the frequency of vehicle crashes was higher on bridges with a lower width compared to the roadway width. The frequency of crashes appeared to not be impacted by weather conditions, but crashes may be over represented at night or in dark conditions. Statistical analysis revealed that crashes that occurred on dark roadways were more likely to result in major injury or fatality. These findings potentially highlight the importance of appropriate delineation and signing. System wide, benefit-cost (B/C) analyses yielded very low B/C ratios for statewide bridge rail improvements. This finding is consistent with the aforementioned recommendation to address specific sites where safety concerns exist.