1. State and Local Partnership in Research

2. Research

3.  Areas of Research:  Aggregate and Geotechnical  Pavement Management/Engineering Data  R.O.W/Roadside Management  Hydraulics/Hydrology/Drainage  Materials  Maintenance  Pavements  Policy, Specs, Economic, Legal  Bridges and Structures  Social/Environmental  Traffic and Safety, Operations

4.  IHRB (State) ~ $2.2M  State ~ $750k  State Planning and Research (SPR) (Federal) ~ $2.5M

5.  Project specific funds:  IBRD  SHRP II grants  Highways for Life  FHWA Technology Deployment Funds

6.  1949 – Legislature established the Secondary Road Research Fund in the Iowa Code (1.5% RUTF)  Iowa DOT has oversight of the funds  Iowa DOT funds for Primary Road Research ($750K)  IHRB – advisory board to the DOT  1989 – Legislation allocates municipal funds for city ($200K)

7.  15 members  7 County Engineers  4 Iowa DOT  2 City Engineers: Sarah Oakerlund and Ron Knoche  2 University Representatives  Alternate members

8.  DOT oversees the Primary, Secondary, and Municipal Road Research Fund used for IHRB projects  Operations Research Engineer – executive secretary to the board  IHRB – Advisor to DOT

9.  Calendar – yearly calendar updated in January  Monthly meetings, except January, Aug and November  Communication – Mostly electronic  Via e-mail with board members  Through our website  Board “Packet” for monthly meeting  Agenda, proposals, RFP, reports, topics list for ranking

10.  Ways to Identify projects  Through annual prioritized program  Projects of merit not in prioritized program/emergency  Continuation of previous projects  Novel Idea projects  Outside/joint funding sources for projects

11.  Winter –  various focus groups  Solicitation for ideas: interested parties, board members, DOT, City and County staff  February – Topic Prioritization and Ranking  May and October – RFP  Merit/emergency and joint funding proposals are accepted year round

12.  Proposals submitted to the board are reviewed at the next meeting  Projects must receive a quorum of 8 votes to be approved  Forms – Proposal Format and Quarterly Reports, Tech Briefs  Final Report  Cover sheet (Project Number), inside cover, table of contents, acknowledgments.

13. Iowa Highway Research Board

14.  Projects since 2012 in handout: Reports available at: http://www.iowadot.gov/research

15.  TR-642: Pilot Project for a Hybrid Road-Flooding Forecasting System on Squaw Creek  To be finalized by December.  Iowa DOT Library – a resource available to the transportation field.

17.  Evaluate countermeasures that agencies can use to reduce speeds as drivers enter rural communities located on high-speed roadways. The objectives of this study were as follows:  The treatments evaluated were selected by carefully considering traffic-calming treatments that have been used effectively in other countries for small rural communities, as well as the information gained from the first phase of the project.

18.  The treatments evaluated are as follows:  Transverse speed bars  Colored entrance treatment  Temporary island  Radar-activated speed limit sign  Speed feedback sign

20.  The treatment was moderately effective in reducing mean and 85th percentile speeds (1 to 2 mph) at two sites. However, the treatment was quite effective in reducing the fraction of vehicles that exceeded the posted speed limit with decreases of up to 12 percent, 26 percent, and 54 percent for the fraction traveling 5, 10, or 15 or more mph over the posted speed limit, respectively.  Speeds increased moderately at one site with an increase of 1 mph in mean speed and 2 mph in 85th percentile speed. Moderate increases in vehicles traveling over the posted speed limit also resulted for that one site.

21.  For the radar-activated LED speed limit signs:  Decreases of up to 1 mph resulted with moderate decreases in vehicles traveling 5 or 10 mph over the posted speed limit.  In the second community, significant decreases were noted with a reduction of 5 to 7 mph. Decreases in vehicles traveling 5, 10, or 15 mph over the posted speed limit of up to 53% occurred.  For the dynamic speed feedback sign, mean speed decreased by up to 8 mph and 85th percentile speed decreased by up to 9 mph. Decreases of 45% in those vehicles traveling 5 or more mph over the posted speed limit and a decrease of 73% and 79% occurred for the fraction traveling 10 and 15 or more mph over.

23.  Without the dragon’s teeth: decreases were noted at all three sites with decreases in mean speed between 1 and 2.3 mph. Decreases up to 49% resulted in the fraction of vehicles traveling 5 or more mph over the posted speed limit, 60% in those going 10 or more mph over, and up to 100% in the fraction traveling 15 or more mph over.  After the initial colored entrance treatment had been in place for 12 months, dragon’s teeth were placed on the pavement.

24.  Results indicate that the speed reductions with the dragon’s teeth were similar to what was found for the initial phase without the dragon’s teeth. Consequently, addition of the dragon’s teeth did not appear to improve the effectiveness of the treatment, or at least not significantly, at the three evaluation sites.

26.  Decreases in speed between 1 and 3 mph resulted for two of the locations.  Decreases in the fraction of vehicles traveling 5 or more mph over the speed limit of up to 37%  Decreases of up to 50% and 71% in the those traveling 10 and 15 or more mph over, respectively.  At the third location, little change in speed resulted for any of the speed metrics.

28.  Vanessa Goetz  Research and Analytics  515-239-1382  Vanessa.goetz@dot.iowa.gov