PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #1:20-07Research for the AASHTO Standing Committee onHighways(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 14RAC 1 1 4 14 29Standing Committee on Research■ Facilitates important and timely studies.■ [Rating: 5] This project remains beneficial as part of the annual program of the NCHRP and is important to beingresponsive to tasks identified by SCOH.Research Advisory Committee■ Funding for this activity provides an opportunity obtain information on a variety of important and timely issues facingtransportation departments.■ Strong need. SOM uses this research for spec and test improvements.Item #2:20-24Administration of Highway and Transportation Agencies(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 4 12RAC 1 2 4 18 24Standing Committee on Research■ Research assignments are of relevance to state DOTS but more appropriate for study at national level.■ [Rating: 5] This project remains beneficial as part of the annual program of the NCHRP. It permits State DOT CEOs andother transportation management to explore critical issues with a short turnaround. The first of the seven keys to a robustresearch program is ensuring that it addresses the needs of top management.Item #3:20-05Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 2 13RAC 1 2 1 6 11 28Standing Committee on Research■ Continue this effort■ Efficient way to transfer existing knowledge.■ [Rating: 5] The 20-05 is the Synthesis program, which compiles 13-15 synthesis studies every year that cover varioustopic submitted by State DOT and FHWA staff.Item #4:20-65Research for the AASHTO Standing Committee onPublic Transportation(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 11RAC 1 2 8 17 21Standing Committee on Research■ Recommend continuing, given the relatively small funding level and the numerous quick response efforts. Recommendincreasing funds significantly. From RNS: "Thirty-five potential research topics were received as a result of the May2009 solicitation. The NCHRP 20-65 Panel ranked about half of the proposed topics very high." Thirty-five researchtopics represent a three-fold increase. Urban regions need public transportation solutions, which can only come aboutwith research support.■ This research has proven to be a valuable tool to state administration of transit programs, and should continue■IV-1

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ This is a good program. We actively participate on the SCOPT and this program has been very helpful to us here atADOT.■ Facilitates important and timely studies.■ [Rating: 4] FY-2011 proposals are to be solicited in March 2010 and selections will be in August 2010. Supports lowcost, high priority, short term research in public transportation. FHWA is a member of the selection committee.Research Advisory Committee■ A number of the proposals are important to WSDOT.Item #5:20-30NCHRP-IDEA(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 6 10RAC 2 1 3 10 13 20Standing Committee on Research■ This is a continuing project started in 1992. It provides an opportunity for innovative research in a variety of emphasisareas. A good project.■ Consider increasing funding to $1,500,000 to advance innovative ideas.■ [Rating: 5] Successful program with strong return on investment.Research Advisory Committee■ This is a good project but it needs better defined.Item #6:20-44Accelerating the Application of NCHRP ResearchResults(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 2 1 12RAC 1 4 10 10 24Standing Committee on Research■ Recommend approval, implementation is key to demonstrating/sharing value of research. Question--are we measuring thesuccess of these implementation efforts? If so, how?■ Communicating and implementing research results is (or should be) a key aspect of any program■ [Rating: 4] Continuation of ongoing project to fund various outreach or showcases research successes. Funding shouldbe continued.Research Advisory Committee■ This is not a sustainable model. Project proponents should look at potential implementation strategies when developingproblem statements and how results might be used and deployed-and which organization is the best fit for fundingmechanism.Item #7:20-36Highway Research and Technology - InternationalInformation Sharing(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 5 10RAC 1 6 9 15 18Standing Committee on Research■ Recommend approval, exchange of international knowledge is supportive of innovation in the U.S. Question--issufficient funding set aside for implementation? What has been implemented from previous scans?■ Good program but the information nees to be more widely communicated/sharedIV-2

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ [Rating: 5] This project supports the International Scan program and State representation in PIARC, allowing FHWA tofulfill standing international commitments and obtain foreign information to improve US highway system. Projectsupplements FHWA funds to ensure viability of international outreach based on shared priorities.Research Advisory Committee■ Can this data be shared in other ways - especially with the volume of information now available in various medias.Item #8:D-11Performance-Based Specification for Binders Used inChip Seals (and other SurfaceTreatments)(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 7 8RAC 1 2 2 7 17 20Standing Committee on Research■ Currently we have no performance-based specification for emulsions and binders used in surface treatments. Movingtowards a common performance-based spec system for these binders and emulsions will provide greater uniformity andshould improve the material quality, and thus increase the performance. Surface treatments are widely used in bothmaintenance and preservation, and so improvements in performance will have widespread payoff.■ Research to include rubberized chip seals.■ California has implemented the binder performance specs in select types of chip seal applications. California would verymuch like to implement binder performance specs (including emulsions) in all surface treatments.■ High potential.■ This is a major need for DOT across the country as we implement pavement preservation programs. The likelihood ofsuccess is high. A performance specification will help all agencies ensure successful chip seal projects.■ Emulsified asphalts are still being specified based on outdated criteria (i.e., penetration, viscosity, etc.) Would be good tomove to PG system for these materials. Also, ADOT is using more chip seals due to budget constraints. Other states arelikely doing the same.■ [Rating: 4] The subject problem statement is timely and clearly articulates the shortcomings of the current Superpavebinder specification in addressing its application to chip seals and other surface treatments.Research Advisory Committee■ Yes. This could have some merit.■ Better chip seal binder performance may increase use, but local freeze/thaw and plowing would likely limit chip seals inwet freeze/thaw environments■ Do not suggest combining with NCHRP 10-82,■ Subcommittee on Materials rated this a HIGH priority item. As more emphasis is placed on preventative maintenancethere is a real need to advance the testing to catch up with the technology. I strongly recommend endorsement of thisproposal.Other■ [Rating: 2]■ [Rating: 5] The proposed research aims at developing performance-based specifications for binders used in chip seals andother surface treatments.- NCHRP Project 14-17, scheduled for completion in early 2010, will develop a manual for emulsion-based chip seals forpavement preservation that may address some related issues.- An upcoming NCHRP Project 10-82, Performance Related Specification for Pavement preservation Treatments, willdeal with some surface treatments but may not develop performance-related specifications for binders.IV-3

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings- The proposed research will help highway agencies ensure successful chip seal projects.- Incorporating the development of performance-related specifications for chip seals into the scope of work of NCHRPproject 10-82 is highly recommended; providing supplemental funding (about $200,000) will ensure achieving thisobjective.- Reduce the funding to $200,000 with the provision that it be used to supplement NCHRP Project 10-82 funds.This is the Number 2 priority project for the SOM.Item #9:08-36Research for the AASHTO Standing Committee onPlanning: Support for Improved TransportationPlanning and Project Development(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 7 6RAC 1 4 6 16 22Standing Committee on Research■ Recommend continuing, given that some FY2010 efforts (Task 98, improvement of home-to-work and employment data)appear to have practical value.■ NCHRP does not appear to be the best source for this particular research. The proposed research would use public fundsto determine consumer preferences for housing. Almost by definition, the market for housing is already likely to bestudied by the the real estate/construction sector. However, no literature search was provided in the problem statement toindicate the extent to which this may be the case.■ [Rating: 5] FY-2011 proposals are to be solicited in April 2010 and selections will be in July 2010. Supports low cost,high priority, short term research in transportation planning. FHWA is a member of the selection committee.Research Advisory Committee■ Funding for this project provides an opportunity to gain information in the planning, programming and development ofprojects, thus meeting ODOT's long term goals.■ This research proejcts supports the overall statewide planning efforts and is needed to continue finding effective planningsolutions and implementation strategies. However, we would like the research to be more multi-modal in the aspect ofhow to measure the needs/levels of service/success of projects that are not highway/bridge specific. E.g. maritime, bikelevels of service, etc.■ On going programOther■ [Rating: 5] Highest priorityItem #10:20-06Legal Problems Arising Out of Highway Programs(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 6 9RAC 2 1 4 8 14 20Standing Committee on Research■ Recommend 200K plus 90,000 from NCHRP 20-59■ There are many publications that compile condemnation case information, but no other, that I know of, specifically fortransportation departments■ [Rating: 5] The studies sponsored by the 20-6 Committee address important, current legal problems and issues of interestto highway transportation lawyers and other transportation professionals throughout the United States. The reportsproduced are relied upon heavily by federal, state, local, and private practitioners as a form of continuing legal educationand a means of identifying best practices. The need for this research activity continues.IV-4

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #11:25-25Quick Response Research for the AASHTO StandingCommittee on the Environment(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 6 9RAC 1 1 1 6 5 16 19Standing Committee on Research■ Project 25-25 has proven to be successful over the last several years. The project selection process seems to be soundand there are efforts underway to ensure implementation.■ ok with increasingly complex environmental issues facing DOTs and the public political perception that responses mustbe quick this research is invaluable■ Is there an NCHRP Environmental Research Program?■ Many of the research projects derived from this program have had practical application for us at NHDOT.■ Facilitates important and timely studies.■ [Rating: 5] Allows opportunity to meet immediate needs on all process, technical, emerging needs issues, wellcoordinated w/ STEP and CEE activities.Research Advisory Committee■ Project 25-25 research results are generally relevant and helpful to WSDOT. That said, NCHRP could do a better job ofdisseminating research results to those staff in state DOTs who need to see the results.■ From STEP Web Site: "Section 5207 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacyfor Users (SAFETEA-LU) established the Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative ResearchProgram (STEP). The general objective of the STEP is to improve understanding of the complex relationship betweensurface transportation, planning and the environment. SAFETEA-LU provides $16.875 million per year for FY2006-FY2009 to implement this new cooperative research program. Due to obligation limitations, rescissions and the overdesignationof Title V Research in SAFETEA-LU, it is anticipated that approximately $12.8 million of the $16.875million authorized will be available each year.STEP will also be the sole source of SAFETEA-LU funds available toconduct all FHWA research on planning and environmental issues. In addition, Congress mandated several specialstudies, i.e., Report on Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program (Section 1807 of SAFETEA-LU) and the AnnualReport for the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program (Section 6005(h) of SAFETEA-LU). STEP willalso be the funding source for these projects."Item #12:09-40Optimization of Tack Coat for HMA Placement(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 7 9RAC 3 2 2 11 14 17Standing Committee on Research■ These researchers are indeed dealing with material/construction costs that increased rapidly after initiation. Theylegitimately need more money to complete.■ It is important that this research be completed. Will benefit many transportation agencies.■ 78K is needed to complete this 350K project.■ [Rating: 5] Continuation - approved by panelResearch Advisory Committee■ I attended a TRB presentation about this tack coast and totally understand the project cost rise due to the need for a muchmore complex and lengthy field experiment conducted than originally envisioned. But we need to tell LTRC that this isthe last fund adjustment, and no more.IV-5

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Critical information for asphalt pavements■ MN involved on existing study■ I am aware of several states that are doing similar work with tack coat. There is a need to update tack coat guidespecifications. Another issue is the update of the characterization of tack coat materials; especially emulsions.Item #13:20-59Surface Transportation Security Research(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 1 6 8RAC 2 2 4 12 12 17Standing Committee on Research■ [Rating: 5]Research Advisory Committee■ Transportation has many high value targets for terrorists both domestic and foreign. However, the DOT should stay in asupport role to eliminate duplicated effort currently being done by Department of Homeland Security. They areconducting security inspections under ACAMS and other programs. ■ The continuation of this project will provide guidance to transportation agencies across the nation to be able to improvesecurity and emergency operations and ensure consistency across state borders.Item #14:G-19Auxiliary Turn Lane Design Guidance and PolicyUpgrades(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 7 6RAC 2 4 14 14 15Standing Committee on Research■ There is a strong need for clear guidance on turn lanes especially with regard to access management. NCHRP 03-72,Lane Widths, Channelized Right Turns, and Right-Turn Deceleration Lanes in Urban and Suburban Areas attempted toaddress this for right turn lanes.■ Recommend this as a synthesis.■ Good problem, but the budget could be cut down by 40% or so.■ [Rating: 4] This problem statement addresses an important need for more detailed guidance on turn lanes, particularlyoffset turn lanes. However, it is recommended that the subject project not duplicate existing efforts, i.e. NCHRP Project 3-91 that is developing design guidance on left turn lanes at unsignalized intersections, and fulfill a gap in our safetyknowledge of turn lanes.Research Advisory Committee■ Subcomiitee on Design Rank # 1■ This is an important area that has been neglected for decades. Harmelinks work from 1967 is still the most referencedstudy here.■ Agree with reduced funding.■ .Extremely High Priority. Needed for AASHTO Green Book. Results will affect intersection design nationwide.Critically needed now.■ It appears that there is substantial information available from the literature search and the need for the research is notstrongly presented.IV-6

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Reduce the cost■ Reduce funding to $400,000.■ It appears the need and benefits for the project are quite viable, although one of the endorsements encouraged notoverlapping work with other ongoing research with a subsequent reduction in funding to $400,000 for the same period.The results would have applicability to all states, although states with fewer rural intersections or limited right-of-way forlane expansion would not benefit as much as others.■ This research has been needed for a long time.Other■ [Rating: 5] Rank #1Item #15:20-68AU. S. Domestic Scan Program(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 3 4 8RAC 3 1 1 5 13 11 15Standing Committee on Research■ Good program but the information nees to be more widely communicated/shared■ This is a continuing project started in 2005. A “scan” is a four-part process for information exchange involving face-tofacecommunication for innovative insight into research topics. A good project.■ Consider use of electronic media to complete more scans at lower cost and package the technology transfer with webbased training.■ [Rating: 5] This continues the on-going effort to identify good practices in priority program areas and rapidly transfersthe knowledge concerning these to state transportation organizations. It is favorably viewed and has been readilyaccepted as being an effective means to accelerate the implementation of new and innovative methods as well as goodpractices. This Domestic Scan program is supported by both State DOT’s and FHWA. Further priority emphasis isprovided from the Administrator’s “Every Day Counts” initiative that emphasizes innovative technology and technologytransfer.Research Advisory Committee■ Can this data be shared in other ways - especially with the volume of information now available in various medias.Item #16:22-14(3)Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware usingUpdated Criteria(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 1 7 6RAC 2 2 1 6 6 17 15Standing Committee on Research■ This is needed for AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware■ [Rating: 3] This continuation would address a concern in current crash test procedures for cable median barriers (i.e.,conducting tests with two different median widths, which is difficult to accomplish at a single testing facility). If thiscontinuation is funded, the results of recent FHWA and NCHRP Project 22-25 analyses should be carefully consideredbefore conducting the proposed testing effort.Research Advisory Committee■ Safety is our first priority and we are starting to use a lot of median cable barrier. This research would gain us somevaluable information.■ Priority. Needed to evaluate effectiveness of existing barriers to see if we need to replace themIV-7

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ The need/anticipated use of the funds is not clear-"evaluate the feasibility and repeatability of conducting these additionaltests…" The focus in on non-proprietary systems which many/most states use. Need is questionable as NCHRPcompliant systems can continue to be used.■ important study■ This is needed research.Item #17:C-01Development of System Fracture Analysis Methods forFracture Critical Steel Bridges(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 6 5RAC 1 1 2 5 12 13 15Standing Committee on Research■ A consistent widely accepted definition of fracture critical bridges and methods of analysis to determine fracture criticalwill result in significant cost savings to bridge owners. Significant cost savings will result from both the currentinventory of fracture critical bridges and as new construction/replacement steel structures are designed. Existing fracturecritical bridges require more frequent costly inspections. New construction or replacement structures will require lessredundancy, resulting in more efficient design.■ The AASHTO code does not give detailed guidance on the appropriate methods for steel bridge system wide fractureanalysis.■ Of possible interest ot bridge working groups.■ This issue is of great interest to bridge owners and has been debated over the years without a definite recommendation.■ [Rating: 5] If successful, this project will establish reliable methodologies that will become standardized practice for theuse of high performance steels (HPS) in bridge construction. The resulting guidelines will assist in redefining fracturecritical bridges enabling engineers to easily capitalize on the design and construction efficiencies possible with HPS.This project is currently rated the #1 priority by the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures.FHWA concurs with this priority.Research Advisory Committee■ Facilitate the accuracy in updates to the FC list.■ Very important - #1 for Bridge Committee■ Refining the definition of a fracture critical bridge would be useful especially for steel truss bridges.■ MI is not significantly involved in HP steel. Do not feel the need to reclassify or reidentify these structures is of highimportance. (Design)■ This problem statement covers too broad of a scope in regard to the bridge type and shape, and this will make it verydifficult to address all the needs under this research project.■ very important researchItem #18:G-31Update of the TRB Access Management Manual(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 6 5 5RAC 1 3 3 14 14 14Standing Committee on Research■ Access management continues to be a critical issue for transportation agencies. Keeping this manual up to date with thebest and most effective strategies is important.IV-8

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Much has been learned since research began for the current manual and an update would be useful.■ There is significant need.■ [Rating: 4] Update of the Manual is highly recommended. If the Manual did not already exist, then a “5” would mostcertainly be warranted. The Manual is the definitive reference and needs to be kept current. FYI, I understand the Manualhas been translated into Chinese. (I’ve seen that version)Research Advisory Committee■ It's been 15 years since the Access Management Manual was first initiated. During this timeframe, the practice of accessmanagement has continued to advance and it is important to keep the manual up to date. The manual is widely used, esp.as DOTs (state and local) are increasingly emphasizing improving safety and getting more out of the current roadwaysystem (access management can help improve both). NCDOT is employing many of the techniques described in themanual and has continued to receive requests for the manual in recent years. This is the number one priority of the TRBAccess Management Committee. The Committee voted to submit only one NCHRP research project in September 2009due to the importance of updating the manual.■ Can use updated research to improve the Manual? Low cost for good benefit.■ There is a real value in incorporating the research of the last 15 years into a current version of the Access ManagementManual. This is definitely beneficial nationwide. Filling in the current gaps in the Access Management Manual wouldprovide a valuable tool to engineers planning and designing for improvements to the transportation system, resulting infuture benefits justifying the cost.■ Expanded research info on this topic would help MassDOT to improve safety and reduce congestion.■ SHA Submission (Operations)■ Yes, this is a current problem that needs researching. This will keep all the states up to date and informed on newprocedures. This is of nationwide interest.■ Since very few facilities have been built using the recommendations in the Manual, more time is needed to allowadditional projects to completed before the Manual is updated.Other■ [Rating: 3] It is time for an update to this manual.■ Generally related to Reliability and CapacityItem #19:D-01Self-Consolidating Concrete for Cast-in-place ConcreteBridges and Tunnels(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 5 7 4RAC 1 1 1 5 13 18 10Standing Committee on Research■ SCC in CIP applications are not commonly used in DOT’s. There are questions that need to be answered: stability of themixture, air void parameters and the stability of the air void system, form pressures, shrinkage and creep in SCC mixtureswhich generally use small aggregates.■ Much information is already available on this topic.■ This proposal would require industry buy-in for manufacture and delivery of Self-Consolidating Concrete (SCC). DOTbuy-in will be necessary for allowing trial use on permanent elements. There is a need to address constructability relatedissues at a project level while there is little need to address design related issues.■ SCC is becoming more widely used in cast-in-place concrete applications. The research will provide further guidance onIV-9

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsits use. ■ Development of a guideline and relevant changes to the LRFD Bridge Design and Construction Specifications areneeded to facilitate broader acceptance for cast-in-place applications of SCC.■ [Rating: 3] Experience over the past decade has demonstrated that SCC offers significant benefits in many precastapplications; however, cast-in-place concrete applications have been slow to adopt SCC. This project could spurinnovation by laying the groundwork for success.Research Advisory Committee■ Proven benefits in precast, need to extend this to cast in place construction.■ New material that holds a lot of promises. This research will answer a lot of questions for bridge engineers so it can beimplemented in everyday practice.■ We have had research in this area. (Design)■ Recommend increasing project cost to $600,000.■ In this problem statement, there are many elements that need to be researched by SCC producers and manufacturers aspart of their product development plan. Also is important to understand that there are many SCC materials in the market,and it would be very difficult to develop guidelines to cover all of them in this research.Other■ [Rating: 5] The proposed research deals with use of self-consolidating concrete (SCC) for cast-in-place concrete bridgesand tunnels. This research will complement the recently completed NCHRP research on use of SCC for precast ,prestressed concrete bridge elements (NCHRP Report 628).- There an increased use of cast-in-place SCC by state highway agencies; guidance on its use will help highway agenciesensure successful application.- The proposed funding seems inadequate to support the anticipated research; an increase to $600,000 is stronglyrecommended.This is the Number 1 priority project for the SOM.Item #20:09-45Test Methods and Specification Criteria for MineralFiller Used in HMA(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 7 7RAC 3 2 3 15 13 13Standing Committee on Research■ Certainly sounds like the project has been successful so far and potential benefits from the continuation will beworthwhile. Also, VDOT may be able to use some of the information that will be obtained. The continuation soundsreasonable and it appears that valuable benefits will be gained.■ It is important that this research be completed. Will benefit many transportation agencies.■ Not sure how many states will benefit from this. Doesn't seem to be very critical from my perspective.■ [Rating: 5] Continuation - approved by panelResearch Advisory Committee■ This is an ongoing research project. The panel overseeing the research believes this additional request is needed,therefore, it should be supported.■ I am ok with this if it is the only time cost increase.■ It's interesting that they only mention aggregate material passing the #200 as being "mineral filler." This research will beIV-10

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsof limited use for MSDOT.Item #21:SP-02Intellectual Property Stewardship Guide forTransportation Departments(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 1 3 2 2 7RAC 2 1 3 4 9 11 19Standing Committee on Research■ Important issue when innovation is the goal.■ Intellectual property issues are a significant impediment for innovation. A better understanding of IP issues wouldbenefit DOTs.■ This is an issue that is coming up more and more in state research programs.■ [Rating: 5] The necessity of establishing Intellectual Property protocols within the area of government fundedtransportation research is greatly needed. The ability to encourage more research that can be commercialized is seriouslylacking within this practice area. As such, research that can better establish the path for research to be protected andcommercialized will greatly benefit both public and private sectors interests.Research Advisory Committee■ We really need more legal research and guidance on this issue as more and more questions are being raised.Item #22:08-70Target-Setting Methods and Data Management toSupport Performance-Based Resource Allocation byTransportation Agencies(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 1 2 8 4RAC 1 2 1 6 9 17 13Standing Committee on Research■ The Continuation Request gives no hint of what the contractors have achieved with the first $700K.■ Needed for new Transportation bill■ [Rating: 3] Reasonable low cost for making result implementable more broadlyResearch Advisory Committee■ This is an excellent subject that definitely needs additional research and practical recommendations.■ Extremely important. We need ways to measure the needs and successes of projects that are not highway centric. If thisresearch focuses on other modes then we are in high support.■ This study is very important to continue and eventually complete. While most all state DOTs have strategic goals,measures, and objectives, I am not sure many states determine how much resources are necessary for each based on risk.■ This work could bring real value to investment trade-off decision making but it is limited. Performance based budgetneeds to focus on identifying and improving poor performance, but performance only criteria could lead to investments inmarginal problems.■ This is an important issue that DOTs are struggling with, and I agree that we need more specifics on how to integrate datawith policy, planning, and all aspects of our agencies.Other■ [Rating: 5] The Subcommittee on Asset Management supports this continuationIV-11

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #23:C-17Consideration of Roadside Design and RoadsideFeatures in the Highway Safety Manual(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 2 9 4RAC 1 2 2 5 12 15 12Standing Committee on Research■ This is a good, needed project but the budget is way out of proportion for a project that involves no field data collection.The budget should be about half of what has been requested.This project compares crash models between RDG andHSM and this is needed. Funding is too high.■ [Rating: 3] There is a need to enhance the Highway Safety Manual relative to the guidance it provides about roadway androadside design for safety. There seems to be a fundamental difference related to the level of detail between the conceptsembodied in the HSM and the processes for roadway design or the deployment of roadside safety hardware. One is at amacro-level (i.e., highway elements) while the other at the micro-level (i.e., spot locations). It is unclear whether theproposed approaches will be successful in bridging this gap. Efforts are needed to develop a more detailed process foridentifying specific roadside hazards on highway elements (i.e., links) and defining the optimal mitigating measures atthe hardware level.Research Advisory Committee■ Subcomittee on Design Rank # 2■ This appears to be a very useful and tangible product. We use the AMFs that we have all the time for SafetyApplications, Safety Analyst and other program evaluations. Obtaining additional AMFs for ROR crashes is critical sincewe have close to 100,000 per year. Having this additional knowledge in the HSM would be extremely beneficial.■ This is a very well written problem statement. Run off the road crashes has long been an emphasis area nationally.■ Since ROR crashes account for a high percentage of fatal crashes, this research is needed.Other■ [Rating: 5] Rank #2■ Complementary to L07 (evaluation of highway design features)Item #24:G-04Lead States Initiative for Implementing the HighwaySafety Manual(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 5 4 5RAC 1 3 4 15 10 16Standing Committee on Research■ There is a lot of concern among many states about how they will implement the procedures in the Highway SafetyManual. The HSM uses a much more statistically rigorous, data intensive process for identifying problematic locationsand assessing effectiveness. This effort would provide some model processes and examples that could be useful as usageof the HSM becomes widespread.A concern is how much the lead states will have implemented in one year especiallyunder the current uncertain budgets.■ Should include some very rural states in implementation to help ensure utility where traffic volumes and crash numbersare low■ This proposal is similar to G-05 and G-06; suggest combining them into one proposal.■ The time element seems short to develop experiences, and transmit them.■ [Rating: 5] The problem statement is well thought out and cites proven methods used for other program implementation.The proposed effort is a natural progression of activities supporting the HSM. FHWA can contribute up to $150 K to thisproject if NCHRP is able to cover the remainder of the costs.IV-12

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsResearch Advisory Committee■ North Carolina has been utilizing CMFs for safety project decisions for several years and probably has as much expertisebetween our Headquarters Safety Staff and our Regional staff as any other state. The key for success in North Carolinawill be the ability to carry the same proven (safety project) approach over to more Department (TIP/RRR/RRRR andMaintenance ) project investments and efforts. The possibility for our use in North Carolina beyond just spot safety andhazard elimination projects raises the potential value of this research project. ■ The HSM is an important document that will be coming out and affect a large portion of safety decisions. This is a peerexchange and process to develop an implementation guide. This is something that will be beneficial nationally and it isuseful to know how other State DOTs are implementing safety programs.■ The HSM is an important body of work that should offer major advancements in safety. The costs appear to bereasonable.■ After substantial funding from NCHRP and FHWA and delays since late 2008, AASHTO expects to publish theHighway Safety Manual (HSM) in the Spring of 2010. With the publishing date so close, work in this area is urgent.The HSM will provide useful information and tools in making decisions about highway planning and design. The HSMwas first discussed 10 years ago within TRB, and it has now been determined that the absence of, and the need for asingle, authoritative document to use for estimating safety impacts. The National Cooperative Research Programcurrently has a project (NCHRP Project 17-36) underway to produce the first edition of the Highway Safety Manual.There will be training materials, including “Train-the-Trainer” available upon the HSM release. The HSM is a guidancedocument, not a formal policy document. The HSM will co-exist with other documents and is evolving along with legalconcerns and considerations. With any new process, this project may be subject to significant scrutiny and resistance butwill help assure that highway agencies are implementing and benefiting from the experiences and lessons learned by thelead states initiative.■ The HSM is an important document for those in the safety field.Item #25:A-01Transportation Investments and the Economy:Broadening the Scope and Enhancing the Methodology(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 5 3 6RAC 1 2 2 7 9 14 14Standing Committee on Research■ Pro: A subject of intense interest. Con: Probability of breaking fresh ground is tiny. The list of serious contenders for thiscontract is short, all firms who have won recent past NCHRP projects on more-or-less closely related topics. Withrespect to Phase I: It’s out there already. With respect to Phase II: It’s suggested here that benefits are measured toonarrowly in standard BCAs of transportation investments (TIs). But if benefits are expanded, costs must also be scaledup proportionally. E.g., where the proposal says the benefits to freight will be included in the BCA of TIs, are we tounderstand that the full costs imposed by freight (i.e. accelerated wear of pavements and more frequent maintenanceexpenses) will also be included? Expanding only benefits would make the outcome of a BCA less credible. Bottom line:freight traffic reaps major benefits and imposes major costs on the transportation system. Enlarge both or neither inBCAs of TIs. ■ Phase 1 only @ 75,000. There appears to be other studies in progress■ Too many important issues lumped into one project.■ Economic valuation, freight benefits, and greenhouse gas emissions are not adequately accounted for in currentbenefit/cost assessments. Better inclusion of these three elements into transportation investment analyses is needed. Theresults of Phase 2 could be quite useful to transportation decision makers throughout the nation. ■ The scope is too broad. Better to try a fewer things and do them well. Greenhouse gas issue may be too large for thisstudy.IV-13

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Scope to broad to provide useful results■ Better evidence and data regarding the connection between transportation and the economy would be helpful.■ The research should be broken up into three or four projects and more detail provided on exactly how the research is tobe performed. The proposal is to investigate the use of labor productivity rather than labor cost when evaluating theeconomic impact of transportation overall and when trying to choose between competing transportation projects or whenallocating transportation funds. The author argues that since it is the same substitution in each case all of the cases shouldbe considered together. However I feel there is too much of a difference between how the data is used in each case toconsider them together. Labor productivity or output per worker divides the GDP in a particular sector by the number ofworkers in that sector. Labor cost is primarily wages divided by the number of workers. GDP captures much more of theimpact on the economy but at the cost of much more of the data being estimated using proxies. The data below thenational level is also often shared down rather than being measured. Wages are much narrower but the data is exact andof the same quality at the county, state and national levels. Labor productivity is the way to go when evaluating theoverall impact of transportation precisely because GDP is an attempt to capture all domestic economic activity. Phase 1of the proposed research would cover this area and as long as it can be shown to be breaking new ground would beuseful. Phase II is more in line with using the alternative measures for comparison purposes. The researcher would needto show that use of different measures leads to different conclusions and also that the difference is not the result of dataweaknesses.■ Supportive of the "estimation and valuation methodology to incorporate freight and greenhouse gas emissions" effort■ [Rating: 3]Research Advisory Committee■ Must incorporate Wes Lum's comments.■ Excellent subject. Public education is needed. It is important that the results can be communicated in layman's terms andpresented to the public.■ This project closely relates to economic growth and prosperity initiatives that we are currently undertaking at ODOT. Wewould REALLY like to see more emphasis put on capturing ALL BENEFITS and ALL COSTS associated with aproejct. For example, impact to society, cost of incidents, impact to environment, etc. This may be out of the scope forthis project but would be very beneficial.■ Many efforts have synthesized reports on the importance of transportation for the economy. While cost benefit analysisof freight transportation needs to be improved, the proposed scope does not address these problems. Greenhouse gasemissions would be a better value.■ The proposal is too broad and overarching to be successful. It considers several timely and relevant topics, but the scopemust be narrowed to become more manageable. There is ongoing research in several of the areas addressed in theproposal, and to move forward at this time with this proposal would risk overrunning one or more of those areas.Recommend rewrite and focus, possibly on the greenhouse gas production as it relates to transportation economicmodeling and what weighting this and other environmental issues might receive in a transportatation benefit/cost analysis.Other■ [Rating: 4] A needed project, scope much broader than asset management■ [Rating: 5]■ Complementary to L11(value of travel time reliability for input to B/C calculations)IV-14

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #26:G-08Strategies for Improving the Safety of Horizontal Curves(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 1 7 6RAC 1 2 8 14 14 10Standing Committee on Research■ This is an interesting project, but care should be taken that it is compatible with procedures in the new Highway SafetyManual. States will be investing considerable resources in gearing up for HSM adoption, and I worry that this projectmay produce a competing methodology for examining horizontal curves. Interesting topic. Attempt to overcometraditional statistical approaches. Challenge would be validation of the "structure" models.■ Seems an impossible task on any sort of national level and the literature review is sparse. Though examining curvecrashes make sense. Efforts like the ones underway in Iowa and other states seem to be going well. Suggest rewrite theproposal to examine states' efforts and develop a next-phase project.■ It is not clear whether a macroscopic model will be successful in predicting the accidents, but it seems worthwhile to try.■ Needed research to help understand contributing factors in crashes at a site.■ Good problem and can be analytically robust, but not sure how much of applications to the real world will actuallyhappen.■ [Rating: 4] The topic is very important to research and gain better understanding, however there are so many variables toinclude and so much research going on already in this area that the problem statement may be too broad to effectivelymanage as written.Research Advisory Committee■ NC has made several (NCDOT funded) recent Safety Research efforts to attempt to address and improve identificationand treatment of horizontal curves. NC is also looking at additional systemic approaches to address lane departurecrashes and horizontal curves are a key component of that effort. Unfortunately much of the research on horizontalcurves has been filtered to simple curves whereas in reality there are many complex curves with variable/non symmetricradii (that were never engineered to begin with), vertical/superelevation and grade issues, and increasingly more locationswith acess points (driveways and street intersections within the influence area if not inside the curve itself).■ This proposal does a good job of outlining the issue, and makes a reasonably strong case for a more holistic approach tohorizontal curve safety analysis. The probability of success is unclear as the availability of some data elements may be alimiting issue. IHSDM may have explored some of this.■ Once various strategies are identified and tested, the implementation should at a minimum significantly improve thecurrent process. Highway crash data supports addressing the horizontal curve problem.■ There seems to be a lot of other research out there already on rumble strips, longitudinal barrier, etc.Other■ [Rating: 4]Item #27:G-18Safety Evaluation of the 13 Controlling Criteria forDesign(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 6 6 3RAC 1 7 16 14 11Standing Committee on Research■ Good idea but all features such as turn lanes are not included. The 13 critieria should be revisited.We are likely to gaina lot more knowledge as we implement the HSM. It can wait until enough progress of implementing the HSM is made.■ It would be prudent to evaluate the assumptions that were used in establishing the original controlling criteria andIV-15

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsdetermine whether they are still appropriate, need to be modified or changed in a significant manner to address currentconditions.■ An update to the 13 controlling criteria is necessary, especially given the upcoming publication of HSM. However, theamount of research needed is not well-defined, so the funding level should be somewhat flexible.■ Has the potential to reduce construction costs and project impacts■ This is a good idea to synthesize and fill some gaps, but the budget could be cut down by 30% or more.■ [Rating: 4] This research proposal has highlighted the potential safety and financial impacts to the State DOTs and designcommunities. It illustrates the critical needs to fill the knowledge gap with better understanding of the safety evaluationof the 13 controlling criteria for design. However, there is a concern about whether the proposed research objectives canbe fully accomplished within the 36 months.Research Advisory Committee■ High priority. Will guide design exception decisions.■ This proposal appears to be worthwhile and a timely project. The AASHTO 13 controlling criteria have been thebackbone of safety and capacity improvement project development efforts for years. As state, much has been learnedsince these criteria were identified and it is time to revisit the issue.■ The 13 controlling criteria should be evaluated to measure the effects of deviating from the recommended values,especially since CSS is becoming more prelavant.Other■ Topic area might be addressed using data from the SHRP 2 NDS in the future, but there is no duplication in the project.Item #28:03-94Transportation Systems Operations and ManagementGuide(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 5 7 3RAC 2 1 5 6 21 14Standing Committee on Research■ Agree that a web document seems like a good idea, but I question whether this is really a cost effective use of NCHRPdollars to get the consultant to host the document instead of AASHTO during balloting. Is this really better thanAASHTO doing it internally?■ The intent of this Continuation Request is somewhat confusing, and lacks specific definition of the process.■ Operations and Management are often overlooked but should be integral to construction■ [Rating: 5] This innovative project is a logical extension of the current project. It will enable the guide to be built on aninteractive format that will placed on the web. The tremendous amount of information contained in the guide will betotally on the web, without hard copy. This will be unique for AASHTO and NCHRP.Other■ Complements SHRP 2 Reliability focus area, particularly L17IV-16

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #29:F-01Quantify the Information Necessary to Guide BridgePreservation Decisions(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 1 9 3RAC 2 1 2 7 11 17 9Standing Committee on Research■ This initiative is very important, and there is presently increasing momentum behind concepts of bridge preservation inthe highway bridge community. The statement, as written, is fairly broad, but has some specific short-term deliverablesthat would be of significant benefit to bridge managers. The outlined approach has some similarities to efforts currentlyunderway as part of FHWA's Long Term Bridge Performance Program, but the aforementioned deliverables are notnecessarily already under development. Thus, it is recommended that this initiative be supported, and that the efforts becoordinated and leverage the resources of the LTBP program to the maximum extent possible.■ Support combining with F-02■ Tools or guidance developed to help make better decisions would be useful.■ Combine with F02■ Maybe add F-02 and F-03 with no additional funding.■ [Rating: 5] The focus of this problem statement is very much inline with the objectives of the LTBP program and theFHWA. A number of the proposed studies in 3 phases of this problem statement could complement the LTBP programactivities.Research Advisory Committee■ Combine with F-03 for total budget of $300,000■ Reduce the research period to 24 months.■ Could be useful, seems like cost is too high.■ As Evaluation panel previously recommended, this problem statement may need to be combined with Problem Statement2011-F-02.Other■ [Rating: 5] Priority #3Item #30:B-03Improving FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM) byExpanding its Acoustical Capabilities and Applications(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 5 6 5RAC 2 3 3 7 13 11 10Standing Committee on Research■ The need for the project is justified and the savings related to potentially moving away from some of the overlyconservative predictions of the existing version of the model could be huge. However, $450,000 is pretty steep.■ Results could facilitate more effective discussions with regulators and the public■ Pooled fund project TPF-5(158) currently underway and the project will be beta testing 3.0 this summer.■ There are probably practical limits to the benefits to be gained by adding continual “fine tuning” to TNM. For moststates actual simplification of TNM based on experience over the past several years might be valuable.■ This effort would identify deficiencies in the existing TNM that can produce erroneous results. These errors have beenattributed to a lack of adequate TNM tools and standardized protocol. Problem areas that have been specificallyIV-17

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsidentified in this proposal have all been or could be encountered in New Hampshire and many other states around thecountry. TNM is generally the only tool used to determine traffic noise impacts as well as the eligibility and placementof any subsequent noise mitigating structures. For this reason, eliminating any known inaccuracies would result inmonetary savings through improved efficiency of the noise evaluation process as well as potentially preventing theconstruction of unwarranted mitigation projects. It would be very helpful if a lookup table feature were added to thisproposal. Facilities such as weigh stations, rest areas, and toll facilities are often designed similarly. A lookup table forsuch facilities could provide preliminary data that could be used to determine if further TNM analysis is necessary.■ May add benefit to Quiet Pavement studies■ [Rating: 5] This research builds on previous and current work by FHWA to develop the FHWA Traffic Noise Model byfocusing on identifying user methodologies to model unusual situations.Research Advisory Committee■ Having an update of the TNN model will be a great help to ODOT. We fully support this item and have been asking forit Nationally for years.■ The current effort to update TNM2.5 to version 3.0 is nearing completion and many of the issues of concern are beingaddressed. The issues of structure borne noise or toll plazas are not a high priority for WSDOT.■ What is the long-term assessment of needs for the Traffic Noise Model, and how does the proposed research fit into theoverall plan?■ This problem statement ranks low-medium in comparison to the others reviewed. There is merit to the proposed work,but other research is needed more than this study.■ TNM was released in 1998 with many problems. Several additional versions have been released; however, there are stillmajor problems. A new noise model should be developed instead of devoting additional effort to this problem plagedmodel.■ Agree with the comment from Adam Alexander on retitling the studyOther■ [Rating: 5] This is the backbone for all traffic noise analyses for all DOTs. An update to TNM is essential as it isextremely outdated and has inadequacies. AASHTO's Standing Committee on the Environment worked with FHWA todevelop this problem statement. This is one of the committee's top priorities.Item #31:D-12Establish Design Specifications, Material Specificationsand Test Methods for 100-Year Service Life for Pipe inthe applicable AASHTO Specifications(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 9 5RAC 2 4 3 7 6 15 12Standing Committee on Research■ High urgency and good potential given the "hidden" nature of the asset and the difficulty of repair and disruption oftraffic that can result from premature failure. Three states, including VA submitted. Should be sure to include factorsrelated to the environmental setting in which pipe is placed.■ Methodology to determine 50 year life isn't certain, much less 100 year■ Agree with comments by NCHRP reviewer.■ Combine this project with C-05 and broaden the scope to look at criteria for alternate pipe design selection, etc. Totalstudy budget should be limited to $500,000 to address both objectives.■ Providing a nationwide design, material and methods spec for service life of different pipe materials would be beneficialIV-18

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsfor all DOT’s.■ Understanding what needs to be done to revise design and material standards to achieve a 100 year life for different typesof pipe would be highly beneficial to DOT's.■ Pipe installation and inspection guidelines to meet the service life for various pipe materials should also be developed.■ [Rating: 4] The problem statement indicates that AASHTO 100-year service life also pertains to LRFD specifications forpipe. The 100 year life requirement applies to buried pipe (concrete, steel and plastic). The problem statement is clearwith considerable detail and of national relevance particularly w/ regard to the increased use of plastic pipe.Research Advisory Committee■ If this research gets approved, it must address the very real issue of long term risk due to fire damage. In areas of thecountry where wildfires are very common (like Oklahoma), this risk to the various pipe materials must be considered inany legitimate research on the subject■ Has little promise and does not address issues that have high risk in transportation■ This problem statement rates high in comparison to the others reviewed. A 100-year service life is needed for pipe, and itwill be required by AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specs eventually. There is a clear and present need for this research; it isappropriate for NCHRP, and it has a high payoff potential.■ very important research■ This is an overwhelming, but worthwhile effort. This proposal is a joint effort between the Sub on Bridges and the Subon Materials.Other■ [Rating: 4] This is the Number 4 priority project for the SOM.Item #32:F-02Best Practices for Preserving Bridge decks(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 5 7 2RAC 1 1 1 7 16 11 12Standing Committee on Research■ We already know the best practices for preserving bridge decks. The project will not likely provide new information.■ Support combining with F-01■ This is a major concern for Caltrans and a very high priority.■ Combine with F-03 for total budget of $300,000■ Make sure that the evaluation of effectiveness for each treatment includes field testing. Combine with F01.■ combine with F-30■ Combining with F-01.■ Maybe combine under F-01 with no additional funding.■ [Rating: 5] Deck performance and the performance of deck treatments has been identified by many states as a major areaof interest and determining best practices in bridge deck maintenance and cost/benefit of deck treatments would be agreat asset to bridge managing agencies. The FHWA LTBP program has identified this topic as a top priority for theprogram and this NCHRP program would be a great compliment to be able to dig into the detail of the topic and provideIV-19

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsuseful feedback to guide the direction of the FHWA LTBP on this topic.Research Advisory Committee■ combine with problem statement 2011-F-01■ Combine with F-02 for total budget of $300,000■ Better served as a synthesis.■ Suggest combining F-02 and F-03. Washington has a well established deck program.■ Could be combined with F-01■ As Evaluation panel previously recommended, this problem statement may need to be combined with Problem Statement2011-F-01.Other■ [Rating: 4] Suggest combining F-02 and F-03■ Some of the topics related to this project (e.g., cathodic protection and membranes) are being investigated and futherimproved in SHRP 2 Project R19-A.Item #33:C-07Review of the basis for rehabilitation design using theMEPDG(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 5 6 2RAC 1 1 2 4 12 17 12Standing Committee on Research■ The MEPDG was originally developed for analysis of new designs. Since most work is rehabilitation, this project is ofhigh importance. A framework for inclusion of rehabilitation designs is very much needed. However, NCHRP 1-40Ahas identified the shortcomings of MEPDG and new efforts are needed to address those shortcomings. Furtherclarification may not be beneficial. Resources should be utilized to address those identified areas one at a time instead ofanother blanket problem statement to develop a newer “roadmap”. Once these issues have been resolved a final upgradeof the MEPDG may be conducted. A synthesis may be suitable tool to gather the new information available to addressthose identified shortcoming areas.■ The road map has no destination, no goals with regards to the research objective.■ There are a number of anomalies that have been noticed in the rehab modules of the Mechanistic Empirical PavementDesign Guideline (MEPDG), especially the Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) rehabilitation. Improving the methods to designrehab strategies with concrete for both rigid and flexible pavements should be given an in-depth consideration.■ There is a high need for the objectives of the research; however, other related projects that have been started are not yetcompleted. This may be premature.■ Deliverables not adequately defined, may be better addressed on state level■ [Rating: 4] A necessary first step toward addressing the MEPDG limitations with respect to rehabilitation design. Thisproject will layout a research work plan to overcome this critical gap. This was one of the highest ranked priorities forthe AASHTO JTCP last year.Research Advisory Committee■ This is an area of weakness in the MEPDG and needs immediate attention.■ The proposed research is too broad in scope.IV-20

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Yes, needed information for pavement rehab■ This specifically addresses some in-situ testing and analysis that I find to be the weak point of the ME design■ May be more difficult to be a successful project than time or budget would indicate.■ Probably too much $ for a project that only develops a roadmap to address perceived shortcomings in MEPDG.■ Darein hasn't determined how other research will be incorporated into the MEPDG■ Focus of development of MEPDG was on new pavements, not overlay design; therefore, this is a much needed study.Other■ [Rating: 2.5] A needed assessment of the rehabilitation measures and methodologies in the M-E PDG. However, asproposed this is a fishing expedition.■ [Rating: 4]■ This project is related to SHRP 2 R23 Using the Existing Pavement in Place and Achieving long life. This project hasdone some preliminary evaluation of the MEPDG for select renewal strategies.Item #34:C-11Determining the Validity of Network PavementCondition Data(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 2 4 2 7RAC 2 3 1 8 8 18 9Standing Committee on Research■ The need for such a study may be aparent, but it might be better performed initially as a synthesis where the currentpractices of the state DOTs are compiled to see what is needed nationally.■ Caltrans is working on an automated distress condition project; this proposed research will compliment the Caltranseffort that is already underway. Validating data is an important part of Quality Assessment.■ Ongoing issue - results could provide significant benefit.■ [Rating: 2] The narrowly focused topic is just one aspect of a comprehensive quality management of pavement conditiondata. Should be part of the auditing process in a quality assurance procedure and is part of the quality managementprocess. Past and on-going efforts in this area - NCHRP Project 20-5 Synthesis Topic 39-01 "Quality Management ofPavement Condition Data Collection" and recently completed but to be published "Integrating Condition MeasurementVariability In Network Pavement Management."Research Advisory Committee■ This may be good for some States but for Ohio we have already incorporated edit checks and procedures for ensuringgood data collection. We are also involved with pooled fund studies that have helped us do quality control checks on ourdata.■ The proposal emphasizes IRI measurements, but AASHTO guidelines already exist for certifying roughness datacollection. Recommend that the problem statement instead emphasize rutting and cracking measurements, which havefewer guidelines available.■ This is critical to validate the statewide pavement condition data prior to any use of these criteria as performancemeasures. FHWA should be concerned and should be performing these validations and quality assurances on its own■ SHA Submission (Operations)■ State DOTs would welcome this. Many of us have home-grown QA procedures, but some guidelines would be handy.IV-21

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsOther■ [Rating: 2.5] This has been a continuing problem dating back to pre-LTPP. We need to focus on collecting quality dataat the time and not looking for it in a database. Outlier determination techniques already exist■ [Rating: 5] The proposed research would help agencies identify and assess possible outlying data valuesItem #35:G-29Performance of Longitudinal Barriers on Curves andSuper-Elevated Roadway Sections(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 1 5 6 3RAC 1 2 3 4 16 17 6Standing Committee on Research■ The scope of the effort is a concern. Is there a evidence of a problem?■ [Rating: 5] This is an important research that and needs to be pursued, because past evaluations have focused on straightsections of barrier on level surfaces.. The research should, however, make much greater use of analytical tools such asvehicle dynamics analysis and crash simulations to develop insights into the relationships between barrier features, roaddesign, and impact conditions. Many more of these factors can be evaluated using an analytical approach compared tocrash testing. These should be the focus a first phase. Crash tests will be needed to validate the findings and to testmodifications to hardware to be deployed on curved or super-elevated sections later.Research Advisory Committee■ Subcomittee on Design Rank # 3■ This research is very appropriate in evaluating performance issues with longitudinal barriers that have not previouslybeen studied in depth. Standard crash testing of barriers has always evaluated straight roadways and has overlooked theperformance variables for barriers placed on curves. NCAC has dabbled in this area a bit but much more evaluation isneeded.■ This project was ranked as the #1 priority for several AASHTO committees, including the Technical Committee forRoadside Safety. This project would address more real-world considerations for the placement of longitudinal barrierand perhaps enhance the typical flat-plane, straight barrier testing methodology that is in use today.■ The problem statement is well written, and shows a need for this research.Other■ [Rating: 5] Rank #3Item #36:G-05National Strategic Highway Safety Plan Support-Toward Zero Deaths: A National Strategy and Vision(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 5 5 4RAC 2 2 6 16 11 12Standing Committee on Research■ This is a logical extension of the states' efforts at developing strategic highway safety plans. I'm not sure if this is anNCHRP project, though, since much of the proposed work is not research. It is outreach and marketing. Also, I havesome question about whether the national plan will really add that much value beyond what the states havedeveloped.Rather too soon to do this? Many state DOTs have not implemented their SHSP enough to be assessedpartly due to budget predicament. Should wait until enough progress of implementation is made so that lessons learnedfrom implementation of the current SHSPs are available for the project.■ G-5 though G-7 seem intertwined■ Suggest combining with G-04 and G-06.■ [Rating: 5] This would be a continuation of an ongoing FHWA Safety effort where FHWA tasked AASHTO withIV-22

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsdeveloping a plan for formulating and implementing a National SHSP. This effort would build upon the developingFHWA/AASHTO plan. The costs seem reasonable.Research Advisory Committee■ Admirable and Needed. However some of the National Level efforts are beginning to take on a re-cycled appearance -possibly the result of previous unsuccessful efforts and general safety evolution. Several AASHTO Strategic HighwaySafety efforts (including the Integrated Process) laid out some ground work that hopefully this effort could build upon.■ This work is already occurring and is very valuable. However, this research report would be recreating something that isalready working!■ This proposal is redundant with little probability of improving safety performance.■ The Strategic Highway Research Program's Naturalistic Driver Study will produce new information relating to theresearch objectives of G05 and G07, specifically in the areas of outread and research, which may aid in the futureimplementation of the National SHSP. It may be useful to wait for SHRP2 results. SHRP2 data will make for a valuablenew link to SHSP portal(s) in the future.■ It's time to stop planning to plan and creating documents that end up sitting on the shelf, and starting acting to resolve theproblem. $600K would be better spent elsewhere.Item #37:G-09Support for the AASHTO IntellDriveSM Strategic Plan(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 1 3 5 6RAC 6 5 3 10 9 16Standing Committee on Research■ It is imperative that states be actively engaged in the development of IntelliDrive applications such that benefits mayaccrue to public transportation agencies in terms of improved traffic management, incident management, and informationdissemination. Additional benefits may also be found in data collected on infrastructure condition.■ Too expensive, too large an effort - need stimulus funding for this■ Work will be ineffective and wasteful, and better left to the private sector. See attached comments.■ [Rating: 4] This proposed effort by AASHTO is essential for establishing a process and mechanism by which AASHTOmembers can have greater involvement in the IntelliDrive Program through the creation of an IntelliDrive workinggroup. Their support is essential to the successful deployment of V21 Safety related applications that may require thesupport of state and local practitioners. However, the proposal SOW is vague and needs clarification. Suggest reducefunding for this initial step to $500,000.Research Advisory Committee■ Not applicable to Field Operations■ More automated vehicle avoidance systems and information exchange will know dought improve safety.■ It will take a project and concept like this to take us to the next level with regards to serious reductions in highway safetyfatalities and injuries and real-time network information for congestion mitigation. Low-cost short term countermeasuresare great but will only get us so far......■ IntelliDrive has the potential to significantly enhance both safety and mobility on a scale greater than any other programif fully implemented.■ Too much and too big a program for NCHRP. What is research benefit to state DOTs?■ IntelliDrive is a well-established research project with concrete goals and major support from FHWA. It has the potentialIV-23

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsto dramatically change the way that vehicles and infrastructure communicate on the highway system. It should be giventhe highest priority for funding. It also comes with high-level support from AASHTO and other organizations. A coupleof questions that might be asked: is the $1,000,000 requested over 3 years considering what other funding sources maybe available to the project, at what stage of deployment should the project be no longer considered research butoperations, and what are other funding sources for this project?■ A lot of money■ We support this study for funding.Other■ [Rating: 5] IntelliDrive represents the most promising strategy to enhance safety and optimize the efficiency of thehighway system in the future but nationwide support will be essential to move the program forward.■ Generally related to ReliabilityItem #38:SP-05Improving Access to Transportation Information(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 6 4 4RAC 2 3 4 16 13 11Standing Committee on Research■ Recommend approval--we need to find an effective, efficient and consistent/global way to capture existing and futuredocumented knowledge and disseminate. It will result in better information access and should provide cost savings inboth organizing and disseminating.■ The research results will be a good complement to NCHRP 20-75, in that it helps to flesh out how portions of theTransportation Knowledge Network (TKN) business plan should be carried out.■ Could be very important given the aging workforce and continuing turnover of staff, comments should be adequatelyaddressed.■ [Rating: 2] Support for SP-04 is needed before SP-05 can be fully implemented.Research Advisory Committee■ Good project proposal. My opinion is that most transportation agencies excel in collecting and analyzing data, howeverthey struggle in management and reporting of data outside of organizational structures (and sometimes even within). Thisis often because those that manages the data and those that report the data are separate functions or the systems managingthe data are not collaborative. Other challenges may include the fact that most transportation agencies define their dataelements differently compared to other agencies. I would prefer that this research project focus on providing bestpractices and guidance for the sharing of data and use of technology collaboration efforts to enhance equitable reportingand management across organizations (or even within single agencies). The 18 month research period also seems long tome. There are going to be many advances in data management over the next 18 months, and by the time a report ispublished it will be outdated.■ Strategy for capture of transportation information is of high importance now as population retires. There is a great need toimplement a systematic plan for all to consistently archive research, design ways to increase its retrievability, and thenreuse and repurpose, saves staff time ($). Field of education is way ahead on this. Development of KnowledgeManagement initiatives at all levels is first step.■ There is a need to capture both print and internet. If lost, there will be a problem for future duplication of efforts■ Problem statement needs more clarity regarding how its objectives differ from current initiatives. Maybe refining the P.Sto address in specific terms how policies and procedures will be studied/investigated would be helpful.■ The need for better information tracking/accessibility became much more apparent when trying to handle the ARRAIV-24

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsreporting requirements. General opinion is that as the federal program begins to consider performance measures –information availability will be even more of an issue.Other■ Related to L13 and L13aItem #39:B-09Analytical Travel Forecasting Approaches for ProjectLevel Planning and Design(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 10 3RAC 1 4 3 7 13 16 5Standing Committee on Research■ The research needs to retain a focus on peak spreading (e.g., developing K and D factors for a 20 year focus) as well asthe impact of capacity constraints on project planning (especially in cases where a trendline volume forecast causes anexponential growth in delay). Thus issue 3 of Hardt's response remains critical.■ The reduced scope should be accompanied by a reduced cost.■ The issues addressed in this problem statement are critical to all Caltrans Districts engaged in any type of modeling orsimulation. As we become more adept at modeling behavior on corridors, we will have even greater need to understandand predict the impacts of land use changes, the effects of peak spreading and the impact of capacity constraint for eachproject. The development of useful, reliable post-processing tools is long overdue.■ Further research into improvement of the post processing of travel demand models is warranted.■ [Rating: 5] Providing effective project level analyses is a high priority and ongoing need as noted in FHWA’s CorporateRisk Assessment (NEPA Process, Travel Forecasting)Research Advisory Committee■ Design traffic quantifications are now done by one person at ODOT. No personnel for modeling. This project has someuse to ODOT.■ ODOT's forecasting staff considers this project vital. Ohio utilizes the outdated NCHRP 255 procedures daily to providethe 200+ project forecasts we produce. These procedures need updating for the various reasons mentioned in theproposal.■ This is a common issue for demand modelers, however, there are several tools that exist in modeling software. Nationalguidance on how and when to use matrix estimation or to use NCHRP 255 is not necessary as it is a project by projectdecision. A study to focus on post-processing tools to further analyze model output would be useful - especially forurban areas.■ It would serve as a compliment to the much more complex and advanced work being done to fundamentally move travelmodeling forward.■ SHA Submission (Operations)■ Support based on MD SHA's revised objectives. Re-evaluate budget and time frame accordingly.■ This issue is directed more at urbanized areas and overly congested facilities. I don't think there would be muchapplication in our communities.■ Work is needed in this area. Emphasis on land-use is good. Should consider results from Ohio on activity–based traveldemand methods. (To be completed in 2010) I like the proposal for hybrid approaches to provide the methods greaterflexibility. Suggest strengthening the validation and reassessment of the methods and models from observed data sourcesas part of the initial method development to address transferability issues. This validation would most likely extend theproject from a 12-month period. Past practices indicate that providing documentation on the development of the modelsIV-25

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsis very important for future work and should be considered a task in the work plan.Other■ [Rating: 4]■ Complementary to L04 (placing reliability into planning and operations models)Item #40:C-06Effect of Geosynthetics on Structural Pavement Design(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 5 6 2RAC 1 1 3 9 10 13 12Standing Committee on Research■ Many studies have shown benefits of using geosynthetics but there has only recently been work on incorporating theiruse into pavement design practices (and little within the MEPDG). This project would be very useful for designpractioners.■ The models will be a useful tool in Mechanistic Empirical (ME) pavement design. They must be developed in the publicdomain and available to any ME design program. There is significant payoff potential. ■ Would be beneficial. Probably need to increase funding to meet objectives.■ [Rating: 4] A worthwhile effort that is consistent with the recommendations of FHWA's recent research effort “Synthesison Use of Geosynthetics in Pavements and Development of a Roadmap to Geosynthetically-Modified Pavements.” Alsoa high priority for the AASHTO Joint Technical Committee on Pavements as the MEPDG does not provide forconsideration of geosynthetics in structural design.Research Advisory Committee■ The proposed budget and time are insufficent to yield implementable results. There is also a lack of performance data,too soon to incorporate into the MEPDG■ The contribution of geosynthetic inclusions in the pavement section(i.e. including the base and subgrade) needs to bebetter quantified from the pavement design perspective. Studies have either been focused on extremely poor subgradescombined with relatively thin pavements or on moderately soft subgrade conditions, but with fairly robust pavementsections. The link between these 2 extremes is yet to be established and the design procedures and geosyntheticproperties are yet to be developed, despite many previous studies. This study should be rewritten to focus on the gap inknowledge■ Agree with reviewers comments, $600k■ Our use of geosynthetics is limited; probably better for states with other soils■ May be more difficult to be a successful project than time or budget would indicate.■ This research will be most beneficial to transportation agencies who build on problematic, weak subgrade soils if they areincorporating the Mechanistic-empirical Pavement Design method.■ This is a needed study for those states that extensively use unbound aggregates for base and subbase.Other■ [Rating: 2] Primarily a benefit for flexible pavements. However, might have some value for rigid pavements in areas ofpoor support.■ [Rating: 4] Engineering guidelines for designing pavements with geosynthetic materials are needed by designers.Research should be included into the MEPDG.IV-26

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #41:B-15Understanding Market Based Land Use Preferences andTheir Impact on Transportation(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 4 3 6RAC 1 2 8 7 8 10 13Standing Committee on Research■ Good research question(s), but this problem statement may be too ambitious for one project. It certainly won't beaccomplished in 18 months for $300K. Any land use/transportation planning research which presumes --as this proposaldoes –that the form of transportation pricing is irrelevant is short-sighted and of limited value, in my opinion. All theanswers to questions raised in this proposal will be affected by how transportation is financed in the future. The potentialimpact of transportation user pricing on land use and transportation planning must be included in research attempting toanswer the objectives listed here. Neat proposal but does not fully consider existing work. Example: Levine (cited bythe proposers) addressed objective 1, comparing the impacts of (1) lowering housing density and (2) lowering housingprice (relative to income) for different socioeconomic populations. Rewrite as an inexpensive synthesis designed topinpoint why existing research falls short. This can lead to a better defined problem statement. ■ not sure about this one■ While the study outline is well-considered, the concern is that there are not sufficient research dollars ($300K) and time(18 months) to fully assess the issue (as stated in the Research Problem Statement) and develop accurate conclusions.■ This overall study concept is interesting and important. The challenge will be aligning planning and regulation withmarket preferences where costs and tradeoffs are highlighted as a part of the decision making process.■ The problem statement is a request to continue the NCHRP Quick Response research program. Over the past severalyears, this program has funded a significant number of completed studies. The program should be continued.■ [Rating: 3] After reviewing this again since 11/09, besides a concern about successfully completing this project within an18 month, $300 k framework is a concern that without accounting for external costs of “market preferences,” theoutcomes may not lead to appropriate land use decisions.Research Advisory Committee■ This project directly relates to many current issues we are facing with increased transportation infrastructure costschasing urban sprawl. We are extremely interested in the outcome.■ While there is other ongoing research in this area, more is needed.■ This information becomes available to community residents, leaders and town planners will be value added giving themopportunity to make better decisions. With that been said, more information is better thus the proposed study wouldwarrant additional research. Although town planners and private companies can perform this type of study, it’sincumbent that NCHRP continue to build on the experience and the resources that are available. Additional time andmore funding may be required for this research■ Land use information is critical in the NEPA Process to adequately address secondary & cumulative impacts.Other■ [Rating: 5]■ Related to C16 and other SHRP 2 Capacity ProjectsIV-27

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #42:G-22Update of the Traffic Signal Timing Manual(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 2 5 7 1RAC 2 3 8 9 14 13Standing Committee on Research■ This project is useful and addresses up to 12 issues for updating the manual.■ Doubtful if any specific value will be added by updating a just recently developed manual.■ connection to grade crossing■ If funded, incorporate G-24■ Appropriate traffic signal timing has numerous benefits, including reduced congestion and energy conservation.■ [Rating: 4] The Traffic Signal Timing Manual was the first national guidance provided on Signal Timing and effectivelyonly accomplished providing consensus on terminology and basic parameters. Additional research is needed to addresstiming for today’s complex environment with oversaturation and advance features like traffic responsive, preemptions,overlaps, and adaptive systems.Research Advisory Committee■ Inconsistencies currently exist especially in the area of performance measures and travel run methodology■ Combine with G-24■ Yes, this is a current problem that needs researching. This would benefit all states. This is of nationwide interest.Other■ Generally related to ReliabilityItem #43:22-27Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP) Update(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 4 2 8 2RAC 2 1 3 10 12 14 7Standing Committee on Research■ This is needed for RSAP update■ why a 50% increase?■ Fifty percent more is being requested as well as how does project 17-22 fit in to the additional work.■ 50 % of original study? This sounds like a new porject and should compete.■ [Rating: 3] The proposed updates are needed. There is concern, however, whether this continuation will be sufficient tosatisfactorily complete all of the updates and provide suitably credible results.Research Advisory Committee■ Seems to be overlap between this proposal and 2011-C-17 with the HSM (C-17) being the better project.■ High Priority Needed to perform B/C calculations for barriers■ The work is necessary to update RSAP with currently available data.■ There could be some use for design engineers to further safety aspects.IV-28

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #44:F-04Guidelines/Methodology for Developing Cost Effectiveand Cost Efficient Levels of Service(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 6 3 4RAC 3 3 6 14 13 10Standing Committee on Research■ Rating is based on this proposal as a stand alone project. The expected results of this reserch are tools to help sell LOS tothe public and politicians.■ This research will greatly assist Caltrans with its current asset management implementation efforts. The research couldprovide guidance or a best practice review on how levels of service can be set. The study may need to narrow the focus toa particular area or it may be a synthesis of current practices among state DOTs.■ This research problem statement has not been developed to the level to justify spending limited NCHRP funds.■ Possible overlap with existing research underway, e.g NCHRP 8-69, 8-70 and 20-74A■ [Rating: 5] This research is critical for the State's use in developing effective performance measures and wouldcomplement ongoing Level of Service initiatives by HIAM.Research Advisory Committee■ limit the research a to the preparation of a synthesis of current practices■ Although voting no need, the information gathered could be useful. Having a common methodology that can be used byall of the state DOT to determine Levels of Service (LOS) would help all of the DOTs to justify their maintenancepractices. By having a common LOS methodology, it would be easier to match service levels of adjacent states ratherthan be at odds with each others standards. We don’t understand why it would take $400,000 and a year and a half to dothe research objective. The problem statement says, “will include contacting state DOT’s that have established LOSs . . .conduct interviews . . . understand the process they use.” We see this as a 50 state survey not a research project. Givingthe state a guide to help determine what LOS to provide by asset type and establish priorities would be good. If thisoverlaps with NCHRP 8-69, 8-70 and 20-74A, why should it be done?■ Appears that most of the issues will be addressed in a pre-existing NCHRP project■ Can this need be addressed by combining the results of NCHRP 14-20 with a synthesis of SHA and non-SHA currentpractices regarding LOS?■ This would be a good study, though it would be a challenge for state DOTs to bridge the silos to get the proposed LOSelements together and get this implemented.Other■ [Rating: 5] Priority #1■ [Rating: 3] There is a need for this research but also some possible overlap with existing research under way,notably NCHRP 8-69, 8-70 and 20-74AItem #45:B-20Long Distance and Rural Travel TransferableParameters for Statewide Travel Forecasting Models(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 1 8 4RAC 1 3 4 12 7 16 6Standing Committee on Research■ One comment: Tasks 2 and 3 (use of NHTS data and add ons) should be moderately revised such that the contractorfirsts reviews ongoing or completed studies in that area. This should lower the costs of Tasks 2 and 3, leaving more timeto focus on critical Task 4--estimating parameter values where data are lacking.IV-29

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ University of California at Davis is currently working on a model calibration/validation for statewide travel.ThePrincipal Investigator from UCDavis is Mike McCoy at mcmccoy@ucdavis.edu.■ With 30 States developing statewide travel demand models, a unique window of opportunity now exists for research tobe conducted on the interface between rural trip making, long distance intercity travel, and these State models. Tocomplete the tasks outlined in the research objective, the funding level may need to be increased beyond the listed$90,000.■ Critical problem with wide support in the modeling community.■ [Rating: 5] This is a modest and well-scoped effort to address a broad need for the 30+ States engaged in statewidemodeling. This project would also inform efforts at the national level.Research Advisory Committee■ Travel demand models do have some use, and I usually read the reports, but not directly needed here.■ This work is needed as evidenced by the long list of state DOT submitters. For Ohio, it would provide a source tobenchmark some of the new models we put in place as part of the statewide model development. For other states, itwould also provide a source to develop somewhat more simplified models without having to engage in the extremeamount of data collection that it took us. Such "transferable parameter" guide books exist for short distance/urbanpassenger travel and truck travel and are heavily used in the forecasting industry. We think the project cost is underestimated,however.■ This would have no immediate benefit to WSDOT but if we ever go to statewide modeling it will be of value.■ Success would be limited as usable results would be much more relevant in larger states with more extensive rural areasthan MA.■ There is a need for long-distance and rural trip making models. Suggestion: work should include validation of models.■ I don’t how much this effort would benefit statewide travel demand modeling. I do admit in rural areas, statewide traveldemand models are not very accurate but it's mainly because the TAZs are more sparse. It would probably be wise toexplore the 2008 NHTS data (when it's available) before starting a research project.■ Research idea is solid. I question the viability of conducting this research in a one-year, $90,000 effort.Other■ [Rating: 4]Item #46:C-10Roundabout Corridors - A Study in Performance andEfficiency(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 2 5 7 1RAC 1 3 1 6 16 16 6Standing Committee on Research■ Interesting and potentially useful but not a high priority. An interesting problem statement but at this time, a low priorityand low payoff potential.■ Objectives not clear.■ [Rating: 4] There is a need to further study roundabouts in corridors due to the benefits being reported so far for existingroundabout corridors.Research Advisory Committee■ Probably could look at Europe and Australia, they likely have done this already.IV-30

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ The need statement didn't make clear why roundabout corridors compared to signalized intersections are uniquecompared to individual comparisons. The research objectives are inadequately described.■ High Priority Will compliment our K-TRAN study on roundabouts■ Reasonable topic for research. This project should advance the science of roundabout performance.■ The current accident rate on urban and suburban roads is sufficient to warrant additional research. Data is available tosupport the drop in accident and an increase in business where traditional traffic lights were replaced by roundabouts.Municipalities and constructions firms should be involved in the planning of roundabouts although NCHRP should headthe efforts and create guidelines for construction and operation. The benefits can be realized throughout the country aswell as foreign countries. Case studies in the United States and the United Kingdom has returned very positive results.■ With the increase in the use of roundabouts, this research has some merit.Other■ [Rating: 4]Item #47:F-05Convincing the Stakeholders: Developing a Guide forCommunicating Maintenance and Preservation Needs(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 4 3 3 4RAC 1 5 8 11 13 11Standing Committee on Research■ Rating is based on this proposal as a stand alone project. NCHRP staff review of this proposal recommends adding thisto NCHRP Project 14-20, Consequences of Delayed Maintenance, and increasing the project estimate by $250,000. Thisseems appropriate.■ Decision makers need this kind of guide to show value and to validate needs■ look at NCHRP 14-20■ Possible overlap with NCHRP 8-71 and 14-20■ Seems like a lot of money to develop a marketing plan. Should try to take advantage of other industries and businessesthat have already done this.■ [Rating: 3] Other efforts are underway at AASHTO (the National Public Affairs workshop) that spotlight and awardsuccessful communications campaigns. This proposed research supplements efforts such as that.Research Advisory Committee■ Incorporate into NCHRP Project 14-20■ The trend in funding maintenance operations has led to a nationwide deterioration of our highway system.Communicating these effects more effectively would lead to better understanding and improving funding levels ofservice. Would suggest that the funding be reduced from $350,000 to $100,000 and the research period be cut in halffrom two years to one.■ Could be useful. but cost seems high.■ If this issue can result in improved communication to increase the amount funded for bridge and highway repair, it shouldbe rated very high■ This seems to be a logical add-on to NCHRP 14-20 and would address how to implement the findings of 14-20.■ Agree with modifying NCHRP 14-20IV-31

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Communication of these needs to legislators and other non-technical people is a challenge, and this study could provideguidelines for this. Excellent idea but need to wait until NCHRP 01-48 "Incorporating Pavement Preservation into theMEPDG" is completed probably by the end of 2012. The NCHRP 01-48 study results should help to better quantify thebenefits of preservation treatment.■ This does not appear to be a valid research project but instead simply a public relations effort (albeit needed).Other■ [Rating: 3]■ [Rating: 5] Priority #2■ [Rating: 3] Possible overlap with existing research underway, notably NCHRP 8-71 and 14-20.■ Related to C01 and C08Item #48:C-08Developing Design Criteria for Cost-effective Multi-laneLoop Ramp Design(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 5 5 5RAC 1 4 3 12 6 13 10Standing Committee on Research■ I'm not convinced that this is a major issue in Virginia. The preference has been to construct directional ramps that offerhigher capacities than loop ramps, despite their higher costs. There is probably enough experience with multi-lane loopramp design that a synthesis/best practices would be useful.■ There's an ongoing project, not yet complete; can the deliverables of 15-31a take care of this problem.■ Caltrans' Highway Design Manual (HDM) already covers the design of such facilities. This information might be helpfulto other DOTs; possibly share through a Peer Exchange■ There is presently little information in helping to design multi-lane ramps■ [Rating: 4] This research proposal will address the needs by better defining the criteria for one-lane loop ramps andproviding guidance for multi-lane loop ramps where no guidelines are currently available. The expected outcomes of thisresearch will enhance safety and provide needed guidance in a future edition of AASHTO design policy.Research Advisory Committee■ This statement has a good strategy for a topic of great need.■ High Priority Multi-Lane loop ramps are being built and are needed, but not much is known about their design andoperation.■ The proposal does not make a case for the loop ramp focus. Why are the issues presented (capacity restriction) appliedonly to loop ramps? Loop ramps offer more vehicle storage than a diamond I/C design.■ The payoff of such study is worth the investment. Multi-lane loop ramp should be an integral part of future hiwayconstruction. Not only will the hiway be more efficient, but it will reduce the vehicular emissions as well.■ Currently there is little or no guidance in this area, therefore, this research is needed.Other■ [Rating: 5] Rank #4IV-32

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #49:B-02Using Pavement Management Systems to ImproveDecision Making(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 5 3 5 3RAC 3 1 11 13 13 8Standing Committee on Research■ While I see the goal of this project as worthwhile, in my opinion, this information exists elsewhere and can be developedbased on commercially available software.■ Can they produce a PMS how-to-guide considering the various environments and practices in the nation.■ Suggest synthesis; many states use PMS very effectively now■ Most states have PMS, but they are underutilized in making decisions.■ Will be difficult to develop a generic report as every State DOTs PMS is set up differently.■ [Rating: 5] A "how to" guide is a much needed and the recent technological and policy advances will make this guideoffer something even to those agencies that have advanced pavement management activities. The guide must be genericenough and should avoid tying to specific software packages. Also, this is a high priority for the AASHTO JointTechnical Committee on Pavements.Research Advisory Committee■ Most states have PMS, but they are underutilized in making decisions.■ This may be good for some States, but we do a good job at utilizing our data from the pavement management system toimpact or make our decisions.■ The problem statement contains many important objectives, but seems overly broad to try to accomplish all in a singleproject. Recommend the focus be narrowed, and use state examples as case studies.■ Not sure how to pick only three pavement management systems to develop this guide for■ MI has a Roadway Quality Forcasting System for developing network preservation strategies which serve as the base todevelop short- and long-term rehabilitation programs since 1995. Two papers were published regarding this system in1991 and are available through ASTM at http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/STP/PAGES/STP17819S.htm andhttp://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/STP/PAGES/STP17795S.htm. The next phase of this system will be to try toidentify root causes of pavement deterioration using the pavement surface distress paterns, which still needs to bedeveloped and funded. If you have any questions, please contact Wen-hou Kuo at 517-335-1301 or kuow@michigan.gov■ Support the concept, but not tieing it to specific software packages■ Technical assistance to State DOTs from FHWA PMS specialists is anticipated to continue to be more responsive to theneeds of individual states and therefore more valuable that another guide document.■ This is the study we have been waiting for--nuts-and-bolts and how-to. We have the broad brush strokes and most of ushave a PMS, but we would like to see more specific information on this. This is needed as a tool to train PavementManagement Engineers.■ Uncertain as to how the results will be able to address disparate systems across the statesOther■ [Rating: 1]■ [Rating: 3] The proposed how-to guide would be specific to pavement management software that states areusing. Since states using various PMS software the guide may be of limited use to a number ofIV-33

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsstates.Item #50:SP-06Mobile LiDAR Standards for Transportation Agencies(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 2 5 5 2RAC 1 3 4 8 14 10 9Standing Committee on Research■ Because some states such as Virginia rely heavily on consultants for LIDAR services, the standards should concern notjust the technology used but rather the end product. For example, the standards might specify the data filtering stepsnecessary to eliminate (incorrect) non-surface readings. That said, there could be uses for VDOT in the future and a setof standards would be useful■ Tying airborne LiDAR standards to ground based LiDAR will allow the DOTs to take maximum advantage of availabletechnologies to improve accuracy and resolution of data, and improve the safety of the personnel on the right of way.■ Some interest to track database and track maintenace■ Standards produced should also address using Airborn LIDAR for the most benefit to other TransportationAgencies.This research will provide the foundation for DOTs to implement this technology.■ [Rating: 4] Supports data-driven decisions. Standards will help States and local agencies make good data collectiondecisions, and will improve data consistency between jurisdictions. (Rating would be 5 if focus was not only on onetechnology - LiDAR.)Research Advisory Committee■ LIDAR has a great potential as a planning tool: Slope analysis, roadway geometrics, Land Use, impervious surfacedelineation, etc■ Mobile LiDAR is a technology that many state DOTS are starting to consider mainly due to the decreasing costs anddesire to collect large amounts of data to meet various business needs. This study would avoid duplication of DOT'sefforts in the testing, evaluation and application of the data gathered. All DOTs would benefit from this project by thedevelopment of standards and procedures for its application.■ If the intent is to evaluate the existing mobile LiDAR's accuracy, that might be helpful■ This is an important research subject for the Transportation Community. MDOT, is currently supporting two TPFresearch studies; one is developing safety analysis tools (SafetyAnalyst), the other a Mobile ATMS, under theENTERPRISE project.■ This problem was understated, underscoped and underbudgeted for a technology and it’s associated data with so muchpotential and near future ubiquitness.Other■ [Rating: 3]■ [Rating: 2]■ [Rating: 2] Should be performed by the LED and DMS industries.■ [Rating: NR] Proposed project is to assess LIDAR capabilities for 3-D mapping, not an Asset ManagementProject■ [Rating: 4]IV-34

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #51:G-03Institutionalizing Safety Workforce Development(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 3 4 5 3RAC 3 4 6 16 11 9Standing Committee on Research■ Good topic, but not really "research". This seems more like training to me. Should this be pursued through anotheravenue? There is a need for this type of training, but with current state education and transp. budget limitations, it willlikely be some time before a curriculum can be established. Also, the funding seems disproportionate based on the scopeof the work and deliverables.■ Cost seems high.■ This would be a good project but it looks like it could be a domestic scan candidate or a good synthesis topic rather thana full NCHRP study. The proposed cost may prohibit those alternatives though.■ It is important to have trained transportation safety professionals with the ability to identify, select, prioritize and evaluatecountermeasures■ [Rating: 4] There is a definite need to institutionalize safety within workforce development. The proposed tasks will helpthe safety community progress towards this institutionalization.Research Advisory Committee■ There is formal training (OSHA Training Instititue, ASSE, National Safety Council, etc.), degrees, and ceritification(Board of Certified Safety Professionals - CSP, etc.) and a national systems safety standard (ANSI/AIHA Z10) availablefor those that work on Transportation worker safety. This appears to be to develop training for those Safety professionalsthat would teach the MUTCD content, technical standards for roadway/bridge components, etc. There is overlap for thetwo and this would provide a better train the trainer pool for Safety Professionals that focus on internal worker safety(Confined Space Entry, Fall Protection, Trenching safety as well as workzone setup).■ We believe safety is critical and so is this issue. However, the cost and timeframe seem excessive. This is more of adetermine what is being done and what needs to be done. A course exists that needs to be updated. This should not be along or extensive process.■ Need to coordinate better with existing programs, ie TCCC■ Institutionalizing safety training and education would meet a recognized need and could positively impact WDOToperations and procedures. The research should include civil engineering curriculum.■ This project addresses an important workforce development need. The work might be better handled as a component ofWorkforce planning rather than as a separate research project. The AASHTO Sub-committee on HR is alreadydeveloping a template to conduct workforce planning which can be used by any DOT.■ Although the intent of the project is admirable, there is much safety information available that is not being used or is outof-date.There should be a concerted effort to first assemble that information, and then move forward with this project.To try to establish a common workforce development schema for all 50 states will be difficult due to budgetaryconstraints, existing practice and personnel resources.■ DOTs are woefully lacking in institutionalizing safety into there workforce. This is very important issue for the future ofDOTs.IV-35

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #52:B-07Real-Time Information: Quantifying Traveler Benefitsand Effects on Transportation Demand(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 7 5 1RAC 1 1 3 10 12 17 5Standing Committee on Research■ It will be extremely difficult to quantify many of the effects of many of these countermeasures in a way that can begeneralized across locations. While this is an area where research is needed, the effects are likely to be very site specific.I believe the current scope will likely produce a "more research is needed" finding with little implementation value.■ Should look at the downsides also.■ Only restriction is availability of data■ The project sounds like a good idea but may be difficult to accomplish if the data needed is not readily available.■ [Rating: 4] In the Problem Statement, the 2nd bullet starts out good, but then focuses only on the question of investmentsin en-route information, as opposed to pre-trip & near-trip also. The objectives do not make this distinction so it isimportant to be sure that whole spectrum of providing information and the impacts on demand (which arguably could begreatest with pre-trip) is addressed.Research Advisory Committee■ The emerging use of technology could be very useful for traffic control and the public's real-time transportation choices.Quantifying its benefits would help justify funding.■ There is a value to assessing and quantifying the current benefits of different mechanisms for travel information toprovide Agencies information from which to base decisions. I agree that the scope needs to be narrowed to the optionsfor complicated systems versus simpler means. It would be more realistic to assess how specific types of systems areproviding benefits in different markets. The overall benefits of traveler information infrastructure can exceed the dailytally when emergency management practices or other mass communication needs (Amber Alert, etc) are employed. Anassessment of the cost-benefits should include some consideration about how each technology also meets the overallneeds of society. Much like a hospital and its testing equipment, these are only beneficial if needed, but when needed canbe essential. In addition, there are additional benefits to providing assistance/ information to the public and publicperception of government that traveler information systems provide. Therefore this research should provide pieces ofvaluable information on individual technologies, but a much bigger project would be needed to assess the value of realtimeinformation systems.Other■ Complements SHRP 2 Reliability focus area, especially L11 and L14Item #53:B-01Combining Data Collection for State DOT’s ExistingManagement Systems and HPMS Submittals(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 6 5 6RAC 1 1 11 15 15 6Standing Committee on Research■ Data collection for various systems within a DOT represent a significant investment (or aren't done well.) Consolidatingrequirements would ease the burden and encourage better data programs.■ Should integrate all management systems.■ Suggest synthesis; some states do combine data collection very well already■ Envisioned research product is not clear■ We feel that we have a pretty good handle on this and don't see the benefit of the research.IV-36

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Could be possible ADOT benefit■ [Rating: 4] Timely study in light of the much enhanced HPMS data requirements. Will help improve efficiency, reduceredundancy and improve accuracy of HPMS data. Should include all management systems, including pavementmanagement system. The guide should also address how the changes would impact the use of legacy data and methodsto overcome them.Research Advisory Committee■ Appears good to combine efforts, but the biggest problem could be the collection of data. Example: Some informationrequires specialized employees (condition ratings, etc..) and other data items just require ordinary employees. Ordinaryemployees can't perform specialized work (incorrect data) and your wasting specialized experience (money) collectingbasic information. Also from experience, an employee can only collect so much information (data items) before thequality of information erodes.■ Previous studies did not show good correlations for this also a lot of programs are driven by policies that are notconsistent between States. FHWA should enforce processes and procedures first before undertaking such a study.■ Very few if any similar data items collected for HPMS that are also collected for maintenance needs.Other■ [Rating: 4] Priority #5■ [Rating: 2] Envisioned end product is not clearItem #54:C-02System Performance of Accelerated BridgeConstruction (ABC) Connections in Moderate-to-HighSeismic Regions(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 4 7 2RAC 1 5 8 5 13 9 8Standing Committee on Research■ Results would only benefit DOT's that have to design for high seismic events. Additional research on ABC connectionsis needed.■ Limited use for states not in seismic zone■ This research is critical to the implementation of Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) practices using prefabricatedelements in California and other states with seismic or other extreme event hazards. ABC innovations will result inreduced project delivery time, reduced construction impacts to the travelling public, and improved work zone safety.■ [Rating: 3] Although the research may be needed, the results may only be beneficial to a narrow band of states. Inaddition, the problem statement appears ambitious for the requested funding level considering the current funding/focusof NCHRP 12-74.Research Advisory Committee■ With a national focus on ABC, the major hindrance to its widespread implementation is the uncertainty regarding theperformance of seismic connections. This research will answer a lot of unknowns.■ Benefit to seismic regions■ Important topic for earthquake areas. (Design■ As Evaluation panel previously noted, this problem is a current need for seismic states. This research may not get donewithin 36 months, due to broad scope of work that needs to be done.■IV-37

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ This seems more appropriate for a pooled fund of relevant states rather than a NCHRP study.Item #55:G-21Understanding An Emerging Collision Trend: HowDoes Freeway Width, Access & Complexity AffectSafety (and Driver) Performance?(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 2 6 4 3RAC 2 4 8 20 8 7Standing Committee on Research■ While this is an interesting project, in Virginia our freeways are our safest facilities. In terms of potential crashreductions, we would be better focused looking at non-limited access roads. I think there is already some work that hasbeen completed in this area.Section III aims to confirm (or refute) a hypothesized trend in increased injury severity,whereas Section V assumes this trend is real and thus seeks to identify mitigating strategies. The statement should berewritten to be consistent with Section III--confirm whether this trend is real or not. Then, address mitigations (SectionV) in a separate research effort.Uncertain about successful results of the project after 600K are spent. Once trends areestablished, not just hypothesized, establishing cause and effect could be highly challenging. In addition to what ismentioned, there are many potential factors, for example, increased interstate speed limits in recent years.■ This would enhance DOTs' ability to design for driver behavior■ [Rating: 4] This research will provide important information to better understand the issues, challenges andcountermeasures dealing with complex Interstate and Interchange environments. There is a concern that whether theproposed research objectives can be fully accomplished within the 24 months.Research Advisory Committee■ Hopefully this research can convince decision makers that we should not compromise the operational integrity and safetyof critical interchanges by introducing too many closely spaced inconsistent decision/merge/weave (even left side) pointsand then trying to "compensate" with "innovative" measures that require additional recurrent investment of resources.This effort should basically be pointing out the obvious (better spacing+more simple configurations+better geometryshould yield better performance) however there is a need for additional formal presentation (value determination /tradeoff analysis) and stronger re-statement of fundamental design principles. If the team needs some "bad" exampleswhere too many interchanges have been allowed and compromised a corridor's performance - we should be able toidentify and provide several underperforming NC freeway corridors.■ The proposal does not appear to be well thought out or concise on what it will actually do. Concern is with the projectfocus and developing a usable product.■ This research represents a current problem and if successful, the application of the results would improve safety andmobility in ways that would far outweigh the expense of the study. WSDOT's in house case studies have found thatalthough the number of accidents didn't significantly decrease, there was a major reduction in serious injury accidents.■ Our freeways truly are becoming more complex. There is a definite need to increase our understanding of how thesecomplexities affect safety and driver performance. This problem statement rates medium in comparison to the othersreviewed.■ The development countermeasures and treatments in complex and/or congested areas is of vital importance.Other■ Topic area might be addressed using data from the SHRP 2 NDS in the future, but there is no duplication in the project.IV-38

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #56:G-13Guidelines for Guide Sign Visibility(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 1 6 4 3RAC 2 7 3 18 13 6Standing Committee on Research■ This is a priority for TED. Sign conspicuity continues to be an area of high research need. This project has the potentialto provide benefits that far outweigh costs.■ Consider phasing research.■ [Rating: 5] This is a critical item and is appropriate for NCHRP. Agencies are making decisions regarding overhead signlighting installations based on cost and do not always have adequate information on potential impacts on the drivingpublic. A stand-alone document providing guidance to agencies on how to evaluate the visual performance of signsunder varying geometric and traffic conditions will greatly assist in making appropriate decisions regarding installation orremoval of sign lighting systems and selection of appropriate sign sheeting materials.Research Advisory Committee■ WSDOT may benefit from this research■ Guidelines for sign visibility in conjunction with lighting technology developed by companies that supply vehiclemanufacturers should be geared more towards this problem. Since the study would result in guidelines for sign visibility,NCHRP would be the most logical organization for this type of work. The magnitude of the problem may not meritnational attention but it would significantly improve driving conditions. Various studies and research is been conductedto varying degree. Some of the studies may have a different focus but this information can be extracted.Other■ [Rating: 4]Item #57:B-06Collecting Accurate Motorcycle Travel Data to ReduceRising Fatalities on the Nation’s Highways(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 5 4 3 3RAC 1 3 3 11 15 5 11Standing Committee on Research■ This problem is common to all states. VMT for motorcycles is essential in problem ID and in countermeasure evaluation.Motorcycle countermeasures often go unfunded since their potential benefit cannot be compared to other vehiclecountermeasures.■ Agree with need to detect motorcycles; not sure detection will necessarily lead to safety.■ Motorcycle accidents account for 10% of accident fatalities and the rate is rising. Currently, there is not a method tocapture Motorcycle Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) or the number of motorcycles using the transportation system. Thisresearch could provide data to assist designers in identifying factors that would improve the safety of motorcyclists on thenation's transportation system.■ More suitable to a synthesis■ This could be a lower cost synthesis project.■ FHWA has done significant work in the area of motorcylce detection over the past couple of years. That work should beevaluated first.■ [Rating: 5] This effort is extremely important and necessary, as motorcycle fatalities are the only subgroup still on therise. Accurate exposure data is an absolute necessity in countermeasure development, deployment, and evaluation.However, the objectives and end product are related to current NCHRP Project 8-36 Task 92 - Counting Motorcycles.IV-39

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsThe problem statement should be rewritten to coordinate with the current NCHRP effort.Research Advisory Committee■ There is a significant driver behavior concern with this mode. A large % of fatalities have to do with alcohol, speed anderratic behavior and this type study will likely not address these items.■ This Motorcycle AADT estimation has been proposed in recent HPMS drafts but removed. It will come back eventuallyas a requirement.■ Ohio having same issue with motorcycle crashes as the rest of the nation. This will be very useful and it timely■ Short duration traffic counts (rubber road tubes) are placed on the highways on Monday and picked up on Fridays. Wedo not have the equipment or staffing to leave out over the weekends when there is the most motorcycle activity. Tryingto schedule around weather and rallies is not feasible in our count program.■ This is a 2-prong problem:1) there is a lack of equipment on the market capable of accurately counting motorcycles, and2) there is wide variability of motorcycle distribution (across days of the week (weekends are higher than the traditionallycounted weekdays), across seasons (which can vary throughout a state), across weather in the motorcycle-riding season(ridership is down on rainy days), etc.)■ This is a highly important issue. The FHWA OHPI now requires motorcycle data to be reported by state DOTs. Manystates report motorcycle data, but in my opinion, the quality of the data is suspect. Both federal and state agnecies willbe developing motorcycle safety programs based on whatever data is submitted. It is imperative for the data to be of highquality. Collecting motorcycle travel data is challenging. Research is definitely needed. MDT has done quite a bit ofwork in this area both in terms of developing various detection equipment types and in the area of participting onmotorcycle data issues at the national level. I wonder if this may be duplicative because there is a current NCHRP effortgoing on (863b_92 - Counting Motorcycles) in which MDT is an active participant.■ There is a strong need and interest to collect accurate data about motorcycle use in the US and current data collectionmethods are deficient. I disagree with the assessment by NCHRP Reviewer (C. Hedges) that based on the FHWA trafficmonitoring guide that there is sufficient technical information available to collect accurate motorcycle traffic data. Themonitoring guide advises State to collect motorcycle data. In recent years it has become apparent that systems thatinclude for the collection of motorcycle data are not very accurate. Motorcycle data includes a wide variety of variables,from wheel-path location, vehicle length, parallel driving, low metal content, etc. that are not accounted for. Recentlycompleted work can be used effectively to support the intent of this project which is to improve motorcycle data. Theseimproved data will enable improved knowledge on motorcycle use that can be used to improve safety. NCHRP08-36(92), “ Counting Motorcycles,” Final Report, Cambridge Systematics, February 2010. Page 49, “ Most technologiesproduce counts of Class 1 vehicles that are biased to some extent…. A better understanding of overall accuracy, theextent of any biases, and the influences on these biases is needed for all technologies that are or will commonly used forcounting Class 1 vehicles. The report continues outlines the technical needs including the current detectiontechnologies, performance under varying conditions. The proposed NCHRP 2011-B-06 should continue where NCHRP08-36(92) leaves off, which is to quantify the current accuracies and identify improved methods to achieve these dataneeds. This work should also address the seasonal aspect of motorcycle use, particularly in Northern Regions of the U.S.■ While motorcycle fatalities are on the rise, and are over-represented, this issue is not as big an issue in MSItem #58:D-15A Guidebook for Construction Manager-at-RiskContracting for Highway Projects(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 5 2 6 3RAC 2 7 4 10 7 13 6Standing Committee on Research■ Extremely timely needs statement, although payoff may be impacted by ARRA life. Ideally, the SHRP 2 work withperformance specs (R-07) should complete in parallel or just prior to D-15.■ Many states are now using CM at Risk successfully to deliver transportation projects. The method allows the ultimateIV-40

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsbuilder of the project to participate in the design of the project. This can lead to faster delivery and lower costs. TheDepartment is pursuing legislation to give us authority to use this method.■ Other project development options would be useful.■ [Rating: 4] A guidebook for CMR project delivery would help those agencies wishing to implement this promisingtechnique that falls in between Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build. The amount of work to be done to develop theguidebook can be reduced as many of the state-of-the-practice questions presented in the problem statement have alreadybeen addressed in NCHRP Synthesis 40-02 on CMR.Research Advisory Committee■ WSDOT is currently precluded from any GCCM or variation of related to highway construction. Should WSDOT obtainthe authority in the future, a guidebook would like be used by HQ Construction.■ ConnDOT faces the same pressure as do other DOT’s to deliver projects that are under cost, timely and have qualityworkmanship. Thus having the ability to contract using the Construction Manager at Risk method can work to meet thesebenchmarks. The DOT still benefits of being able to compress the construction schedule with sacrificing control overdesign.Other■ [Rating: 2.5] We question the broad-based interest to make it a high priority. It may have benefit to a limited audience.Consider cutting funding by 1/3 to 1/2 .■ Related to SHRP 2 Project R10 Project Management Stategies for Complex Projects.Item #59: Beyond Escalation Clauses and Price Indexing -D-16 Effective Asphalt Risk Management(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 4 7 4 1RAC 2 1 5 10 16 10 5Standing Committee on Research■ I think the payoff for this work might be deceptively large. It's possible to abuse the systems that are in place now. Acritical review of them could save big money. Is this funding level high enough? [NCHRP review notescomplementarity with Project 10-81. Pro: Timely. Con: 10-81 only received two proposals! I'm not sure how theagency could modify current market forces.■ This is an important issue for California.■ [Rating: 2] The problem statement is vague regarding the risk management techniques to be investigated. We recommendan NCHRP synthesis be first done to determine state and other agency practices.Research Advisory Committee■ Should be a synthesis, not a full project.Other■ [Rating: 2] Should be a synthesis, not a full study.Item #60:C-14Develop Guidelines for the Design and Construction ofUltra-Thin Asphalt Concrete Overlays(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 1 2 6 6RAC 1 4 3 6 14 16 5Standing Committee on Research■ I think that this is a needed area of research considering the shift towards maintenance activities - ultra thin overlays haverepeatedly been suggested as a solution, but there does not seem to be a very broad base of documented knowledge. Thiswould address that lack and have positive payoff once implemented.IV-41

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Will this research consider structural or non-structural overlays. Suggest 5 years and $500,000 with two additional statesincluded in phase 2.■ California already has a guideline.■ Perhaps this would be better suited as a pooled fund study for those states interested.■ [Rating: 3] This would make an excellent synthesis topic. Phase 1 should be considered for a synthesis. Phase 2 wouldneed to consider performance monitoring otherwise it seems a waste of time. If this went to a full performancemonitoring then more funds would be required.Research Advisory Committee■ Yes, needed information and will tie numerous studies together■ Important!■ Not sure how "universal" these treatments would be, considering the variability of regional aggregates, climates, pavingpractices, etc. I like the concept, not sure how useful or timely this would be■ I am unsure of the necessity of Phase 2 to develop a guide document. A project panel should address the scopecarefully. Would a Synthesis of Practise be more appropriate given the number of states that have forged ahead in thisarea?■ The basis for this research is good. MSDOT is like many states in that we developed specifications for our 4.75 mm mixand now have developed an Ultra-thin maintenance mix specification. I think this is a worthwhile effort.Other■ [Rating: 0] States have been installing thin asphalt overlays for over 25 years. This is nothing new or challenging isproposed■ SHRP 2 R26 is related to this only in that Ultra-Thin Overlays is a preservation approach. There is little overlapItem #61:C-04Improvement or Development of Corrosion InspectionTechniques for Highly Stressed High Strength WiresUsed in Bridge Structures(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 1 2 3 6 3RAC 1 4 5 9 17 8 5Standing Committee on Research■ This work is applied and has the potential to benefit bridge owners as we do not have a reliable method fornondestructively evaluating the condition of many of our highly stress high-strength wires that are used in our structures.Almost all major bridges have highly stressed wires and evidence indicates the wires are corroding. No good techniqueis available to identify and quantify the corrosion. Structures will begin to fail because corrosion can not be found duringinspections. Several cases have been documented where corrosion and strand breaks occur, especially in association withvoids caused by incomplete grouting or shrinkage and bleeding of grout. Detection is particularly difficult nearanchorage zones or block-outs where significant concrete cover impedes access to ducts. This problem statement wassubmitted by TRB Committee AHD30 with a recommended funding level of $900k. AASHTO recommends that thescope be limited to applications of post-tension tendons in concrete structures. If funded, the RFP can be refinedaccordingly by the project panel.■ This research is needed to develop or improve prestress strand corrosion inspection techniques and provide fieldinspection guidance's, which will benefit bridge systems and help to ensure the public safety.■ This is a critical problem that needs to be addressed for bridge preservation.■ [Rating: 4] The proposal covers too broad of a scope: corrosion detection using NDE technologies of tendons for pre-IV-42

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingstensioned, post-tensioned bridges, as well as inspection of suspension/staycables. Tasks 1-2 literature survey willindicate a different grouping of technologies for wires, tendons, cables/ropes. The intent behind the research is good;however, the scope should be narrowed and focused on one or two specific technologies.Research Advisory Committee■ Very Expensive.■ Cost is too high.■ Too much $$, why not break into phases■ Seems pricey. (Design)■ As Evaluation panel previously noted, this problem statement covers too broad of a scope, and this will make it verydifficult to address ass the needs under this research project.Other■ [Rating: 4] Priority #4■ [Rating: 2] Finding NDT tools for this is problematic.Has been studied for deck beams in IL. While high tech techniques are available for inspection, the most cost effective isstill regular hands on inspection with a sounding hammer. If a strand is corroded it should not be considered in analysis.■ SHRP 2 Project R06-A is validating NDT techniques for typical deterioration mechanisms (including corrosion) ofconcrete bridge decks. Finidngs from R06-A could help the initial stages of C-04.Item #62:G-02Effectiveness of Behavioral Highway SafetyCountermeasures: Turning Research into Practice(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 5 2 4 3RAC 1 3 5 7 14 13 6Standing Committee on Research■ This is some really useful outreach, but it is not really research. It is implementation of findings and training.Given thestates' severe funding limitations (often precluding the implementation of any new projects), the timing of this proposal isnot good. Also, the funding level is out of balance with the scope of the work.■ [Rating: 3] This is a NHTSA priority. This is a deployment effort for the info/tech developed in NCHRP Report 622.Research Advisory Committee■ Safety is Ohio's first priority. Behavioral countermeasures are critical to highway safety since the driver accounts for alarge majority of crashes, however this research appears to be for developing and hosting workshops on behavioralcountermeasures. We would recommend changing this to a project to develope AMFs for education and enforcementcountermeasures so we know what Rate of Return we receive on our investment.■ Wait until 17-46 is scoped and underway■ The estimated cost seem high for developing workshops and pilot tests. The concept of focusing on implementation ofprevious research is overdue.■ NCHRP Report 622: Effectiveness of Behavioral Highway Safety Countermeasures provides a framework and guidancefor estimating the costs and benefits of countermeasures for states to use in finding solutions to problems facing thetransportation community. The problems outlines in Report 622 are of nationwide interest as most states share the sameproblems. A current problem associated with this study identified by the authors is how quality evidence concerningeffectiveness of behavioral highway safety countermeasures is often lacking. The project proposes the use of regionalworkshops to implement the benefit cost procedures developed under Project 17-33 (NCHRP Report 622). Urgency of asolution to this problem is significant as so many Americans are killed and injured every year in the United States. EachIV-43

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsof the countermeasures outlined in Report 622 appear to be practical strategies categorized by their expectedeffectiveness. The study may not be appropriate for NCHRP but rather the NHTSA and state highway safety offices.■ Improvements to understanding and affecting driver behavior will help to decrease the number of fatalities per year.Item #63:C-19Guidance for Curbs Used in Conjunction with CrashCushions and Guardrail End Terminals(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 10 4RAC 1 2 4 9 21 8 4Standing Committee on Research■ Limited application and low need. Since curbs are discouraged on high-speed roads, likelihood of the problemdescribed would be low. Funding is high due to vehicle testing.■ Participation by user agencies is critical to establishing practical applications that can be used in design and construction.■ [Rating: 4] Previous NCHRP- and FHWA-sponsored research has evaluated guardrails and cable barriers behind sixdifferent types of curbs. There is sufficient knowledge about the influences of varying types of curbs on the vehicle-tobarrierinterface which is critical to effective safety performance. There is a need for guidelines, but the research asproposed goes well beyond. A reduced scope could lead to some basic guidelines for a smaller investment (e.g.,$300,000).Research Advisory Committee■ Well written and described statement. This has been an ongoing problem for ODOT in many locations.■ This research approach is reasonable, however the "need" for curb in conjunction with crash cushions and end treatmentshas not been established. Phase 1 of this project will do that. Recommend that this project have clear criteria thatfacilitates a decision to pursue phase 2.■ There does appear to be a need for understanding the curb to attenuator geometry. Attenuator tests do not include a curb,they are always carried out on level terrain. The use of different shaped curbs and their placement can change thetrajectory of an auto before it hits an attenuation devise. Having this information would allow for better designs in newand retrofit work. Currently there are no studies or research addressing this.Other■ [Rating: 4]Item #64:B-04Managing Rights-of-Way for Biomass Generationand/or Carbon Sequestration(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 6 3 4RAC 1 5 7 7 15 5 9Standing Committee on Research■ This research area seems to have gained significant momentum over the last couple of years. As outlined, the scope isprobably too broad and probably needs to be further refined. I would agree with the FHWA reviewers that many of thelegal obstacles associated with using ROW for carbon sequestration purposes need to be addressed up front.■ Very pertinent & timely. State DOTs (including WI) are being asked to reduce their carbon footprint and contributepositively to greenhouse gas emission reduction. This is the one way to accomplish that-but the procedures,measurements and analysis methods are as yet unknown-this would be a huge positive step in that direction■ The proposed scope may be challenging to fulfill; split up this proposal into 2 major and separate studies. 1) Can thenation’s highway right-of-ways be successfully, economically and safely used to for dry land farming to produce biomassfor fuel or produce other crops for food? 2) How can the nations highway right-of-ways be calculated for carbonsequestration and can the highway roadsides be modified to improve carbon sequestration.IV-44

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ See C hedges coments. Will this be a study that keeeps coming back for more??■ Managing the right-of-way for this purpose would potentially create substantial concerns with permitting, safety,shading, noise, lighting, property rights, aesthetics, and the logistics and cost of managing such a program.■ [Rating: 3] Research objectives 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are wholly or partly overlapping with FHWA’s carbonsequestration pilot. If funded, recommend waiting until FHWA’s reports are published and build from the results andrecommendations therein.Research Advisory Committee■ Very timely. However, there should be a push to "regionalize" the carbon sequestration methods, analysis and evaluation,so that Ohio could get some useful information. Terrain and vegetation are vastly different across the country. 2 years istoo long.■ The carbon sequestration piece is of interest in particular, due to increased demands to remove the tree canopy within theROW for commercial and utility interests (Design)■ This proposed research topic is very timely and would be of great benefit to State DOT’s throughout the country. Thepotential to use right-of-way for carbon sequestration has economic, safety, legal and engineering consequences that mustbe well-researched for rational decision-making to occur. In the Northeast, many states are now part of RGGI (RegionalGreenhouse Gas Initiative) to cap-and-trade greenhouse gas credits in the field of electric power production. I wouldenvision right-of-ways of highways being evaluated as an asset for both carbon sequestration potential as well as amonetary asset at the State’s disposalOther■ [Rating: 3]■ [Rating: 5] The Committee believes that this is a forward thinking proposal. It was developed in consultation withFHWA. It will become even more relevant if a cap and trade system is developed and implemented. This research willbuild on the New Mexico and Minnesota DOT carbon sequestration pilots. It would provide useful information oncarbon sequestration to offset GHG from vehicles. There is also the potential that the research will provide data forprospective revenue generation. TRB's ADC10 has reviewed this problem statement and ranks it as a top priority. Itmirrors a research statement that they have recently developed. This is one of the committee's top priorities.Item #65:G-07Information and Data to Support Improved SafetyManagement and Communication of Safety Needs(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 6 4 1RAC 2 5 9 17 9 7Standing Committee on Research■ Many of the activities in this problem statement are not really research. The work from task group 1 has a largemarketing component, the work from task group 4 seems redundant with other efforts, and task group 5's work seems tofocus on development of materials for a meeting.■ G-5 though G-7 seem intertwined■ Probably good to have good PR materials. Cost seems to high.■ Need coordination with G-05 and G-06.■ [Rating: 3] The proposed activities under the three Task groups are worthwhile and would provide some potentiallyuseful products.Research Advisory Committee■ This project would have some useful products but we believe there are other projects proposed that determine AMFs andwe would rather see those projects completed.IV-45

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ The cost is reasonable and the products appear to be far-reaching and readily accessible. This looks like a goodinvestment and efficient means to deploy performance information.■ This project is directly related to G05, and involves the development of a safety data portal or clearinghouse. TheStrategic Highway Research Program's Naturalistic Driver Study will produce new information relating to the researchobjectives of G05 and G07, specifically in the areas of outreach and research, which may aid in the future implementationof the National SHSP. It may be useful to wait for SHRP2 results. SHRP2 data will make for a valuable new link toSHSP portal(s) in the future.■ It's time to stop planning to plan and creating documents that end up sitting on the shelf, and starting acting to resolve theproblem. $200K would be better spent elsewhere. Research that supports the SHSP but I believe there is a need in thedissemenation of safety material to the road user.Item #66:E-05Design Methods for Laterally Loaded Piles and PileGroups near Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 7 5 1RAC 2 4 5 7 14 13 4Standing Committee on Research■ This research topic should be put on hold until the results of an ongoing study titled 'Interaction of Integral AbutmentPiling and MSE Walls' are analyzed. The Principal Investigator is Prof. George Filz of Virginia Tech. Final report is duein August 2010.■ need but lower priority■ [Rating: 2] The reviewer is not aware any real concerns or problems of laterally loaded pipes near MSE walls.Research Advisory Committee■ Use of these systems will grow in the future. Also this is a safety issue. Appropriate design is a critical need.■ Potential benefit for shorter stuctures.■ This subject needs to be further investigated and design guidelines developed.■ This Department does not build these types of structures. I have not heard of this being a concern; however, the use ofthis type of structure is not too common in the region. Those in the region may be using structure types (integrals or verysmall cap/bent type abutments) where the lateral demand/resistance is not critical.■ This is relevant, necessary research where integral abutments routinely used. Not currently a nationwide problem.Other■ Related to R02 but R02 is much braoder and is looking at several technologies (40+)Item #67:G-23Advanced Work Zone Traffic Control Using Real Time-Travel Time Data(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 1 7 4 1RAC 1 2 7 3 21 11 4Standing Committee on Research■ This project is tied way too closely with one particular technology, the Bluetooth SBIR that FHWA is working on. Thereare many variations of this same basic technology that could be deployed to the same effect. The budget seems to bevery high unless there will be the purchase or rental of a number of work zone ITS devices for the study. The basicconcept of the project is good, but needs to be made more technology neutral in terms of how the travel times aregenerated.■ Problem statement says quite a bit about real time data acquisition, little about how data would be appliedIV-46

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ The collection of Bluetooth data is supported however, the boundary between DOT SBIR (proprietary) and this NCHRPwork has to be clarified. It may be better to postpone this project until the commercial product resulted from SBIR is fullyavailable and operationable.■ Work will be almost entirely duplicative of projects under way. See attached comments.■ [Rating: 3] Recommend to reduce the scope and focus more on the algorithm development and simulation analysis priorto pushing for field testing of the Bluetooth technology developed in the SBIR project). Recommend reducing thefunding, in line with reducing the scope of work. Suggested funding: $450,000Research Advisory Committee■ The time frame for research is too long. 18 months would be more appropriate. There are other technologies that can beused. We also believe this technology is several years away and therefore not appropriate to study at this time.■ Providing real time travel information to drivers is already being used in traffic management plans for work zones and isan effective tool and resource for them to make decisions on their route selection.■ The transportation industry would be interested in this type of information as a way to cut down on unnecessary timestanding still in traffic back-ups. NCHRP should spearhead the effort creating standards for the industry. Similar effortswith a slightly different focus are taking place applying mobile phone and GPS technology. There is a high probabilitythat this research will be successful because of the existing technology that can be used. The anticipated return may berealized now with what is been offered by cell phone service providers.Other■ [Rating: 3]■ [Rating: 2]■ Generally related to ReliabilityItem #68:C-03Development of New AASHTO LRFD Tunnel DesignSpecifications(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 1 5 3 4RAC 2 6 8 6 8 12 7Standing Committee on Research■ The research project is very timely and much needed. The current Bridge LRFD Specification is very limited inaddressing tunnel design. This project will add significant depth to the current Specification.■ Currently, Caltrans has very limited design specification references for tunnels. Chapter 12 of AASHTO LRFD manual isour only reference. With all the new tunnels that are under design for the High Speed Rail this research will beimportant. The research will minimize our being dependent on foreign guides and references.■ This research is needed for LRFD implementation.■ [Rating: 4] There is a need to develop an LRFD-based tunnel design specification for adoption by AASHTO, as no suchspecifications currently exist, and is appropriate as an NCHRP sponsored project. There is no known similar effortunderway. FHWA has a technical manual on Design and Construction of Road Tunnels dated March 2009 which may berelevant in development of this LRFD specifications. Also, information from NCHRP project 20-05/Topic 41-05 onSynthesis of Design Information on Fires in Road Tunnels, which was initiated in 2009, should be useful in developmentof this specification.Research Advisory Committee■ Will benefit all states.■ This research may not get done within 36 months, due to broad scope of work that needs to be done and developingIV-47

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsspecification in nature need much more professional individuals to be involved.Item #69:B-19Travel Impacts and Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Ruraland Smaller Community Land Use Strategies(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 1 1 6 5 2RAC 1 5 6 7 15 9 6Standing Committee on Research■ The proposal states "The primary objective of this research would be to estimate the potential impacts on vehicle-travel."This needs to remain the focus, stopping with the word "travel." I strongly recommend eliminating the emissionscomputations and the sketch planning tool for now, and instead quantify the impact that rural land use strategies have ontravel behavior. Objective information based on observations would be a valuable contribution.■ Well thought out-addresses a real information gap. Very applicable to lots of regions/states. Much better than proposalB-15.■ The research does address rural issues that fill a gap in Caltrans information and rural agencies will benefit fromresearch.This is crucial information for implementing strategies to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.■ A holistic approach to greenhouse gases, land use, and transportation in rural/small communities would be of help tomany States. With EPA's continual efforts to reduce the thresholds for pollutants and GHGs, States will indeed strugglewith air conformity issues. The quantification of policy strategies to reduce VMT and GHG emissions could providevaluable information to States and MPOs.■ small payoff■ A growing body of literature is suggesting that congestion pricing and new fuel technologies are likely to have thegreatest positive impact on VMT reduction and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Research on land-use policies thatinfluence VMT have focused on urban areas, as the submitter notes, for a reason -- the majority of US residents live inthese areas. In the case of the proposed research, focusing on rural areas would have an insignificant impact.Considering the limited nature of NCHRP funds, they would best be used for other studies.■ [Rating: 4] FHWA is committed to including smaller and rural communities in the national efforts around livability,smart growth, GHG emission reduction, and transportation planning. This research would help to fill the gap on the levelof understanding for these communities and their role in these efforts and the effective strategies that can be employed.Research Advisory Committee■ Results could be useful, but proposed budget and timeframes seem to be excessive in relation to knowledge gained andits potential impact on the problem. Results of ongoing studies need to be examined prior to funding a broader studysuch as this.■ Since a majority of mobile source emissions are going to result from urban areas the intent of the project to focus on ruralareas is not a high priority for us at this time.■ Strong support within SCOE. Land use/rural issues are very different and difficult.■ The problem statement clearly defines the research gap/lack of research on land use strategies and travel behavior in nonmetrocommunities. The phased approach to the research would provide valuable incremental data for planningorganizations facing reduction objectives and planning challenges mentioned. The Phase 3 tool has the potential to makeland use stratagies by RPOs much mor effective.■ The research project is understood but not a problem in non-metropolitan areas hence all of the research in theMetropolitan areas. They mention "walkable" or "livable" communities in rural areas. Most people who live in rural areasprobably live there because they like being spread out otherwise they would live in a metropolitan area. One would thinkthat research for metropolitan areas could be applied to the smaller areas somehow, maybe not directly.IV-48

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsOther■ [Rating: 4] A large portion of travel is done in rural and small communities. Quantify, analyze and assign responsibilityfor GHG emissions in the rural and small communities would be beneficial to the DOTs. The Committee ranks thisstatement in the second tier of their top priorities.■ [Rating: 5]■ Related to C09Item #70:B-22Methods to Improve Physical Conditions for PedestriansAlong Existing Roads(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 6 4 2 3RAC 1 2 5 15 13 7 6Standing Committee on Research■ This research project would be a much needed first step, or a wake up call, first, by finding out the degree to which thiscritical topic is (not) addressed. Identifying what would be needed and how that need can be addressed are also critical.For now, the topic seems to be lost with no dedicated ownership. .■ Reduce scope and focus as a synthesis project. Not clear what the research will be used for or how the results will beapplied. We need to look at pedestrian issues-not sure this is what is needed.■ Lack of an adequate policy for sidewalks is a constant problem for Caltrans, and will only escalate in the context ofCalifornia's Complete Streets implementation effort, and various health, safety and environmental initiatives.■ Of possible interest to rail to help with Trespasser issues, related to G-32■ This type of research is warranted. However, the research objective is sketchy, and needs to be developed in more detail--for example, there is no explanation as to how "improving pedestrian accommodations will be identified and described"and how "The second phase of the research will evaluate how effective current practices are...".■ [Rating: 5] The topic is a high priority, supporting Safety and Livability goals. Snow/maintenance and ADA issuesshould be considered in the project scope. Since the research objective focuses on compiling existing information into amore useful form rather than original research, we recommend that the problem statement be reworked and the budget beadjusted to $300,000. Note: B-22 and G-32 are duplicates.Research Advisory Committee■ Education & media promotion will be essential to this effort. Emphasis should be on sidewalks near higher densityconcentrations.■ ODOT is already addressing some of the identified institiutional barriers. We already have an inventory completed forODOT facilities. Perhaps the benefit is to have it in a report for higher level policy leaders?■ While most pedestrian traffic collisions do not involve pedestrians walking along roadways, this research is needed tohelp provide more information about mobility.■ This is the same problem statement as G-32.■ This is a duplicate of G-32■ The problem statement identifies a lack of pedestrian facilities on existing roadways. The literature search is insufficientas it is limited to media reports and one survey. Pedestrian related accident data is available and not included. Ifdeveloped further, the statement may be resubmitted for consideration and perhaps better suited for the TransitCooperative Research Program.■ Under current ADA Guidelines, ped facilities are already being improved on all alterations to existing facilities.IV-49

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Research is not needed for this topic; implementation / project funds are needed.Other■ [Rating: 3]Item #71:C-18Continuation of NCHRP Project 22-23, Criteria forRestoration of Longitudinal Barriers.(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 8 3 2RAC 1 3 5 9 22 5 4Standing Committee on Research■ This should be delayed until more experience using the results of 22-23 is available.■ First part of research was impressive.■ End treatment manufacturer's should participate monetarily as well.■ [Rating: 5] Project 22-23 was extremely successful in establishing quantitative measures for categorizing damage andgenerating an innovative guide for aiding maintenance staff to identify critical elements in the field. This effort wasscoped to only look at guardrails. There is a need for two things. First, the recommended procedures and replacementcriteria developed in the 22-23 project need to be assessed in several agencies and adapted as may be determinednecessary. Second, there are several other types of barriers for which procedures and criteria need to be determined.Research Advisory Committee■ Guidelines to assist maintenance personnel in identifying levels of damage and deterioration to longitudinal barriers . . .to restore operational performance are not needed. The problem statement says that this is typically based on judgment. Itshould remain a judgment call due to many variables. Written guidance as described would tie our hands and necessitatepotential dramatic increases in spending. The evaluation is to be associated with steel post W-beams. There are manytypes of components and this would only lead to more research. The same statement can be made for their proposal toevaluate wood post systems. What about the steel posts that we use? The project proposes to cover wooden post systems,but it is unclear if the condition of wooden posts that have not been struck will be reviewed. It is difficult to determinethe level of decay a post has that is buried. A review of steel and wooden post integrity would be helpful a long with arecommended evaluation process. The proposal talks about overlapping damage modes and oftentimes more than onemode of damage will be present. This is true because there will be an infinite range of hits and varying materials sostudying a handful would be meaningless. They want to use component testing, pendulum testing, and computersimulation crash tests but no real crash tests or after the fact crashes in the field. The $300,000 and 24 months to studythis is too much.■ The initial project (22-23) is ground breaking research. This proposal is a logical next step. Nationally, this is a goodbuy.■ I would rather see the money spent on repairing or upgrading guardrail than funding this study■ This problem statement rates medium in comparison to the others reviewed. As our infrastructure continues to age,highway maintenance personnel need better guidelines for prioritizing maintenance needs. If the guidelines are tooconservative, unwarranted funding will be allocated to replacing barriers that are adequate. If they are too lax, barrierfailures may occur, which may result in increased injuries or fatalities.Other■ [Rating: 3]IV-50

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #72:E-01Culvert and Storm Drain Inspection Manual andManagement System(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 1 3 6 4 1RAC 5 5 6 17 10 6Standing Committee on Research■ seems appropriate to update the manual - $500k too much?■ Caltrans has it's own system and equipment for this activity.■ Important because some states that do not have much, if any in-house expertise or organization should have the Fed todepend on for research and management tools. Management of culverts like this will force states to have an inventory ofall structures and keep vital records.■ [Rating: 3]Research Advisory Committee■ Phase 1 should be funded but not Phase 2.■ The are almost 500 culverts alone needing major rehabilitation. Therefore this issue is very timely■ The Department has initiated a culvert inspection program, and I;m under the impression that other states have as well. Iwould not categorize it as an absolute need; however, there would be benefit to help refine the systems that are in place.■ Phase I yes, Mn/DOT does not need Phase 2Other■ [Rating: 3] Phase 1 okay to fund, do not think Phase 2 should be funded.Item #73: Design Options to Reduce Turning Motor Vehicle /G-35 Bicycle Conflicts at Intersections.(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 3 8 4RAC 3 6 9 18 10 3Standing Committee on Research■ There is a need to examine the standards for striping bike lanes from an objective, safety perspective. Deficiencies incurrent standards need to be looked at using crash data. This project is ranked low because it will not be complete in timeto update the AASHTO guide. NCHRP 15-37 Revising the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,the final report is under ASSHTO ballot. Does this document address this issue? Human error is likely the majorproblem.■ A Caltrans funded study on this topic is nearly complete. A recent NCHRP 500 Report addressed the same issues. Thisresearch is duplicative■ With over 710 cyclist fatalities and 52,000 injuries in the US in 2008, research concerning alternative designs to reducebicycle/motor vehicle conflicts at intersections is warranted.■ Could be a good synthesis study.■ Very critical issue, but funding is insufficient for total scope, and too many items are under consideration, some of whichare not in MUTCD or accepted US practice (bike boxes, bicycle signals, etc.) If rescoped to focus on what's typicallyused across the US, could be very useful.■ [Rating: 3] The proposed problem appears to be appropriate for the NCHRP. The potential payoff from research isestimated to be medium.The problem described is significant. More funding than $250,000 will be required to meet theall of the objectives proposed.IV-51

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsResearch Advisory Committee■ Most of this has already been done and is no longer relevant for research.■ No durations was given for the research proposal.■ The scope of this research will benefit WSDOT. The scope is very targeted and has a good chance of success.■ Do not see much benefit.Item #74:D-04Guide for Measuring the Response of PavementStructures(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 6 2 3 2RAC 1 3 6 13 11 8 7Standing Committee on Research■ An important and very timely project. The results of the study might save researchers a lot of time and money. Projectwill help agencies quanitify effects of various treatments/designs.■ Suggest a synthesis at a lower cost.■ Recommend including testing of some field sites in task 3.■ Consider doing as a synthesis.■ Recommend phase I only as a synthesis study. Phase II can be decided after the completion of phase I.■ Would be beneficial as States will need to instrument and measure response for local calibration of the MEPDG.■ Consider fit in synthesis program - as best practice not guide - but may be too big.■ [Rating: 3] Worth pursuing, but not of the highest priority.Research Advisory Committee■ FWD testing is well documented.■ Currently ODOT has test facilities' were we are undergoing studies with the same concepts in mind.■ Synthesis topic■ Would be informational, just not sure how many states would benefit from research on instrumentation acceleratedpavement facilities■ Recommend for a synthesis series■ Recommend as a synthesis project per HSOMt response. Decrease cost accordingly.■ Agree with Panel recommendation for Synthesis study.■ Good idea and timely since DARWin-ME will be available when the results of this study become availableOther■ [Rating: 3.5] A moderate need exists for this information, but I suspect much of this work has been done and not releasedon a broad scale.■ [Rating: 5] This project is rated a 5 if it is done as a synthesis in the NCHRP 20-05 series. If funded as a full researchproject, rating would be lower.IV-52

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #75:C-16Demonstration of a Cost-Effective In-Service EvaluationProcess for Semi-Rigid Longitudinal Barrier Systems(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 4 6 5RAC 1 5 3 10 18 12Standing Committee on Research■ There willl be challenges in collecting data on collisions w/o a crash report.■ [Rating: 3] The objective is worthy: we need to know how existing hardware is performing, but available in-serviceevaluation processes are not widely used, because they are time- and data-intensive. The proposed approach, however,does not offer significant hope for a more usable procedure.Research Advisory Committee■ When implemented in service reporting is potentially as valuable as the standardized crash testing.■ Consideration should be given to modifying and/or expanding the NCHRP full-scale testing criteria. In general, longterm experience with selected new products should be added to ASSHTO’s New Transportation Products EvaluationProgram. In reviewing new products, the agencies experience with similar products is discussed and should be available.Other■ [Rating: 4]Item #76:B-18Strategies to Reduce Arterial Fuel Consumption andVehicular Emissions(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 3 5 3 2RAC 4 7 6 19 10 3Standing Committee on Research■ MDF: Rating:2, Comments: Unclear to me how this project really improves on a growing body of work in this area. Idon't see how this will produce significantly different results from past work.■ We often argue that operability is a core means to achieve emission reduction-let's see if it is & where the most can begained! Asset preservation & prioritization can be a by-product too. State DOTs (including WI) are being asked toreduce their carbon footprint and contribute positively to greenhouse gas emission reduction. This is the one way toaccomplish that-but the procedures, measurements and analysis methods are as yet unknown-this would be a hugepositive step in that direction■ No need for additional research in this area.■ With the high volatility of fuel prices it would be beneficial to investigate strategies for improving arterial street signaltiming with resultant decreases in vehicle pollutant levels. The recently released EPA "MOVES" model should providevaluable input into this research effort.■ Good idea, but it seems thare is a lot of similar studies are going on.■ not focussed■ The timing of this project fits well with the expected requirement to use EPA model MOVES in two years, most of theresearch answers deficiencies in existing Air Quality and Transportation Models, especially in relation to Hybrids,Electric and changing vehicle fleet and real operational strategies that reduce emissions and fuel efficiency. The EPAMOVES model uses energy assumptions base on vehicle use in laboratories and is specific to fuel and engines ofvehicles. Driving on arterials with signals and delay' times varies by location the more information on estimatedemissions from travel on non-freeways that is inputted in MOVES or similar models the more representative of the regionand better reflects transportation control measures that will be effective and reducing emissions. The end product of thisresearch will provide the tools and strategies to address emissions from signalized arterials - something that is currentlymissing in the existing regulatory models.IV-53

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ [Rating: 3] Study needs to acknowledge the objective of optimizing progression across a network (or across multipleintersecting arterials) and avoid simplified analysis that analyzes an individual arterial in isolation. The potential forinduced demand needs to be acknowledged in estimates of travel time savings and emissions reductions. Finally, thestudy needs to recognize increased fleet hybridization for emissions modeling purposes.Research Advisory Committee■ This is an interesting project and could pose some long term findings that may help down the road. It's hard to read andneeds some rewrite.■ The information provided from this research will assist state DOT's and local jurisdictions in coordinating signals incorridors to reduce emissions. The research would also offer an understanding of the potential emissions reductions fromimplementing signal timing efforts. This could contribute to the development of greenhouse gas reduction plans withrealistic expectations. As stricter emission standards are established information on other pollutants may also beimportant.■ This proposal is timely and appropriate given the continuing struggle with vehicular emissions in mostly urban andsuburban areas. A field test is strongly encouraged to either support or confirm previous work in this field.■ can this include rolling resistance? IRI■ Agree with the comment from John Davies on the need to model induced travel.Other■ [Rating: 3] After review the Committee concluded that the study is more narrowly focused than the title suggests.Additionally, we are concerned that the study is potentially duplicative or work currently under way through theDepartment of Energy. The private sector is also conducting a lot of research in this area.Item #77:C-20Development of Design Standards and Guidance forSeparated Bikeways Adjacent to Roadways(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 4 5 3 1RAC 3 4 12 18 9 3Standing Committee on Research■ Pedestrian use should also be considered. Funding seems appropriate. This would certainly be useful to VDOT.■ Suggest a synthesis.■ The most pressing issue appears to be path intersections with public streets. Some path designs could encourage pathusers to violate laws governing bicycle operation at the entrance and exit of the path. If the research produced guidancefor intersection designs that encourage legal and convenient bicycling between paths and streets, it would be successful.■ of possible interest to rail to help with Trespasser issues■ Insufficient funding for scope. Problem statement contains implicit assumption that proposed treatments will be effective.High likelihood that final report will not provide objective guidance due to political and advocacy influences.■ [Rating: 3] The proposed problem appears to be appropriate for the NCHRP. The potential payoff from research isestimated to be medium. There is existing research available on separated bikeway and shared used paths.Research Advisory Committee■ Very useful information to have. These are being built everywhere with little guidance. However, this proposal seems tobe scattered. At first, thought they are focusing on seperated bikeways but then they include research on bike lane designelements. Too broad to reach any usable conclusions/solutions.■ No duration of the study.IV-54

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Not a well written proposal. Side paths are important and design guidance is needed but the proposal seems to addressmany issues relevant to motorized transportation. Question whether sufficient data is available to analyze bicyclecrashes, and human factors.■ Conduct synthesis first as reviewer suggests■ Separated bikeway design criteria could pose substantial challenges to the designer with regard to ROW width, sightdistance, pedestrian movements & operational issues; aesthetic implications, while secondary, would also be of concern.(Design)■ Consider a limited scope synthesis project?■ As designers start to think about “TOD” or Transit Oriented Design and going green. More research is needed on thedesign options for separated cyclist lanes. Mixed use paths address the various kinds of commuter from walker, jogger,and cyclist. However as congestion increases the need too separate pedestrians from faster moving cyclist are needed.There is a need to investigate successful European separated bikeway use and safety, then incorporating this into designguidance for North America.■ With the ever increasing use of shared use paths adjacent to roadways, this research could be beneficial.Other■ [Rating: 4]Item #78:C-09Study of Vehicle Paths on Horizontal Transition Curves(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 4 5 3 1RAC 1 2 8 10 15 9 4Standing Committee on Research■ This is interesting theoretical work that fills some gaps where there is little research behind Green Book standards. Thisis related to 2011-G-08, so if both are ranked highly, they will need to be coordinated. Interesting but not a high priority■ The AASHTO Technical Committee on Geometric Design, strongly supports conducting this research and believes thatthe urgency for and potential payoff from this research is high because it supports the AASHTO Strategic HighwaySafety Plan for reducing truck-related crashes.■ We are very comfortable with our current practice of using spirals. This seems like a research project to come up with analternate for spirals when spirals normally work for us.■ Combine with G-08.■ [Rating: 3] This proposal is phase one of a two-phase effort to clarify the importance of transition curves and determineneeds related to the design policy. This research can also help to justify and guide future work to reduce truck-relatedcrashes at transition curves and provide needed design guidance in a future edition of AASHTO design policy.Research Advisory Committee■ High Priority Needed for Green Book and Practioners nationwide.■ Well presented discussion and objectives. This is of national interest.■ Related to G-8.■ The Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets does not provide sufficient guidance for designingimprovements to existing potentially dangerous transitional horizontal curves. The researchers suggest studying thesignificant amount of existing research in the study area to produce valuable guidelines along with crash data to beeventually included in the Green Book, leading to a reduction in truck rollover crashes out of a transition.IV-55

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ It has been my experience that horizontal curve transitions are not a safety issue.Other■ Topic area might be addressed using data from the SHRP 2 NDS in the future, but there is no duplication in the project.Item #79:B-05Solutions to Minimize the Impacts of Roadway De-IcingMaterials on Freshwater Systems(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 2 4 3 2RAC 1 6 6 6 13 12 5Standing Committee on Research■ The FHWA and NCHRP staff evaluation indicates this proposal mirrors research already undertaken and reported (2007NCHRP report 577). Unless the proposal is rewritten to build on this existing work or possibly field test and enhance thedecision making tool this research and expenditure will be mostly redundant.■ Existing work has already examined this area■ Work has already been done (NCHRP 577)■ There remain significant questions on sensitive organisms. Aquatic toxicity work should be done on a case by case basisconsidering specific aquatic conditions (e.g. sensitive frog populations in small drainages near highways).■ Appers to be largely duplication of existing work.■ Much of this work was evaluated under NCHRP Report 577 in chapter 3. I agree with Patricia Cazenas comment that theproposal should be rewritten to expand on the previous study focusing on application rates related to weather. A studyaiding the practitioner's ability to apply different chemicals or blends of chemicals in the most efficient manner dependenton the weather and functional class of highway would be more beneficial.■ As pointed out by FHWA in their comments, the author does not mention 2007 NCHRP report #577, "Guidelines for theSelection of Snow and Ice Control Materials to Mitigate Environmental Impacts". This seems like it may be a goodjumping off point. If the author did not cite this document then he may not have been aware of the findings and shouldreview this research and possible revise the problem statement and goals. I think that this research could be beneficialnationwide, even here in AZ. Currently, ATRC has funded a small project to look at the application rates of winterchemical aditives and whatever resarch that comes out of B-05 could influence how and what we apply. If they revise theproblem statement and goals, I give them a 4, if not then it would be lower (3).■ This is an important issue in in many water supply areas.■ [Rating: 3] The problem statement needs to incorporate and complement the existing research that has been recentlycompleted in this area.Research Advisory Committee■ After review of the research problem statement, support of this project as written would not be in the best interest of thedept. There is no need for this research because as the problem statement indicates the ecological impacts to freshwatersystems are well documented in scientific literature. The $450,000 funding would be better spent on implementing bestpractices in winter maintenance as outlined in AASHTO North American Winter Scan. Furthermore, three years for aresearch period is too long particularly when winter snow and ice technology changes so rapidly. There are also severalflaws in the problem statement. They admit there are many chemical deicers such as Sodium Chloride, MagnesiumChloride, Calcium Chloride and others. To make anything meaningful they would have to study all of these. They alsosay, "will test the effects of the identifed treatments to narrow down possible materials... in minimizing impacts to targetsfreshwater sytesm and aquatic speicies." What about safety to the public during winter driving? What about theeconomic impacts? The problem statement then goes on to state that laboratory studies will be used. I do not believe labstudies can replicate the multiple variables of speed, traffic, ground conditions , slope, various applicaton rates, etc. Theoutcome of the project could easily be used against the department in court cases. If the project recommends a practicethe department can not abide by, ODOT runs the risk of going astray of the findings in a project supported by theIV-56

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsdepartment.■ Rewrite of the proposal seems appropriate.■ The authors fail to cite NCHRP report 577 with is a comprehensive work in this area and lays the groundwork for newresearch. Field studies to determine long term impacts to aquatic organism from the use of deicers is needed.■ Transportation Agencies have done a lot to reduce the amount of De-Icing material being applied with the advancementin equipment, implementing reduction strategies, use of anti-icing programs. Much research has already been performedlooking at the environmental impacts of these materials. Research should focus on ways to buffer sensitive areas fromthese various de-icing materials.■ Solid interest from Wisconsin, but not certain whether this is truly a national study … suggest that the Clear Roadspooled fund examine this study.Other■ [Rating: 3]■ [Rating: 4] Maintaining optimal water quality in water bodies while maintaining safe highways is a top priority for alltransportation agencies. Chemical deicers and sanding compounds can compromise water quality if not appliedcorrectly. The Committee acknowledges that the 2007 NCHRP report 577 investigates this topic. The members feel thatthe study was not comprehensive enough to assist the DOTs in make decisions regarding deicing materials. NOAA wasconsulted regarding this topic and they support the effort. The Committee suggests that the study should also includecost effectiveness as a component of the effort. A matrix should be developed highlighting the environmental effectsversus the cost component. This statement is on the committee's second tier of top priorities.Item #80:D-08Development of an Accurate Mathematical Model forPredicting Alaki Silica Reaction Damage in Concrete.(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 6 4 3 2RAC 2 7 5 12 9 8 6Standing Committee on Research■ The premise on which the proposal is based is misdirected. The formula for expressing the alkali content of cement isnot the reason for the problems the agency has experienced. It has a sound chemical basis and works fairly well withinbounds.The agency's problems suggest that the amount of alkali in concrete they accepted as tolerable was simply toohigh. Nonetheless, there are issues related to the alkalies in hydraulic cements that would be worth investigating. Thatsaid, that the problem geerating this proposal has occurred amidst the FHWA research program raises a cuationary noteand the need to proceed circumspectly.■ Some available tools are not mentioned problem statement■ of possible interest to concrete tie manufactuirng work■ We are not sure if a formula can be developed to cope with blended cements.■ Many states are dealing with the ASR issue in their concrete. The revelation by TxDOT justifies further research in thisarea. This is truly a national concern.■ [Rating: 5] The research as outlined in the problem statement will further enhance our fundamental understanding ofASR issues. The observed ASR in airfields due to potassium acetate as deicers is better understood now due to somepreliminary research data in objective 1 of FHWA ongoing research effort. It appears that as concentration of potassiumacetate is increased, hydroxyl activity increases drastically while the concentration of the hydroxyl ions remainsessentially constant.Research Advisory Committee■ This will help in developing better testing and evaluation tool for ASR potential aggregates. Also help determine if ourIV-57

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsmitigation requirements are sufficient (low alkali cement, fly ash and slag).■ WSDOT does not use the alkali loading approach in addressing ASR concerns. The research would not have animmediate impact on our specifications.■ Has some promise and addresses issues that affect concrete in our bridges■ Suggest funding level of $600,000.■ As it has been mentioned in the reviewer comments, this research should recognize the ongoing research by otherorganizations. This problem statement could be proposed with higher prediction of ASR damage to pavements andstructures.■ Subcommittee on Materials rated this proposal as a HIGH priority. The proposer strikes at a couple of potential issuesthat caused us to start looking at our specifications related to available alkali available for ASR. We do not calculateavailable alkali like Texas does, but have considered their approach. The issue presented with cement production is avery real issue.Other■ [Rating: 5] This would be highly useful information in this time of changing manufacturing processes and environmentalconstraints. . Needs a more appealing title. Those who do not read the problem statement will rate this low based on thetitle.■ [Rating: 5] The proposed research deals with determining the Na2O equivalent alkali content of the cement and its usefor predicting the potential alkali reaction (ASR) damage of the concrete.- Concrete damage due to ASR reaction has been observed in highway pavements and bridge structures, accurateprediction models will help highway agencies taking the necessary measures to mitigate such damage.- The proposed research seems to focus on the alkalis in the cement although other cementitious materials used in theconcrete mixture could affect its susceptibility to ASR.- The research should recognize the ongoing research by FHWA and other organizations, the previous researchperformed under SHRP, and the numerous studies conducted on this topic to avoid duplication.- Although the proposed research seems to be basic in nature, it could helpful in better predicting potential ASR damageto pavements and structures.- The problem statement has not provided an estimate of required funds; a funding level of $600,000 is recommended.This is the number 3 priority project for the SOM.Item #81:F-06Cross Asset Funding Investment Strategies forMaintenance(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 4 4 4 3 1RAC 3 6 13 12 11 4Standing Committee on Research■ This proposal develops a synthesis of practice. As such other NCHRP funding sources are available and moreappropriate. Virginia has been on the cutting edge of asset management practice and such a report would be of marginalvalue to us. With many more research needs than funding, other needs should take priority.■ Recommended funding of $200,000 seems high for this work.■ Recommend a synthesis■ Synthesis■ Envisioned product is a synthesis report, this should be a candidate for 20-5■ SynthesisIV-58

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Consider fit in synthesis program. May be addressed under F-04 or F-05.■ [Rating: 4] An essential part of Asset Management is the ability to effectively allocate funds across assets types. Thisresearch would be very beneficial to State DOTs and HIAM by identifying the state of the practice and successfulstrategies in this area.Research Advisory Committee■ reduce to $100,000■ The problem statement says this is a survey to conduct a synthesis among highway agencies on the process they use todetermine investment dollars across asset types such as how much should go to pavements, or bridges, or other assetclasses based on need. ODOT currently has a means of evaluating the conditions of bridges and pavements. A surveywill have too many factors across 50 states to narrow down any practical use. The cost is also too high at $200,000. Wedon’t believe that the research would lead to an improved ability to allocate state and federal dollars at it says because ofall the state to state objectives and constant limits on funding.■ Low value in conducting a survey of what other states are doing because decisions are based on legislative/policydirection.■ Consider as a synthesis project.■ Although worthwhile in concept, much of the demand balancing for funding by different asset classes is presently part ofthe operational side of asset management programs in various State and Federal agencies. In addition, the methodologyis so fluid that a methodology documented this year may not be in place next year.Other■ [Rating: 4] Priority #6■ [Rating: 1] Envisioned product is a synthesis of best practice, should be submitted under NCHRP 20-5Item #82:G-32Methods to Improve Physical Conditions for PedestriansAlong Existing Roads(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 5 5 2 1RAC 1 2 6 17 12 7 4Standing Committee on Research■ there is a lot of work out there on this issue. This may be better suited to a synthesis than a new project.■ Develop as a synthesis■ Important for livable communities. The problem statement needs to be refined and should be more focused.■ Not clear distinction between this and B-22, Of possible interest to rail to help with Trespasser issues■ This type of research is warranted. However, the research objective is sketchy, and needs to be developed in more detail--for example, there is no explanation as to how "improving pedestrian accommodations will be identified and described"and how "The second phase of the research will evaluate how effective current practices are...".■ Same as B-22. ■ Duplicate with B-22■ Walkways are one of FHWA's 9 proven crash countermeasures (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/memo071008/). Also,MPD Pedestrian Safety Action Plan recommends an ADOT guideline or policy for sidewalk construction andmaintenance (http://mpd.azdot.gov/mpd/systems_planning/PDF/PedSafety/2009_06_24ADOT_PSAP_Final.pdf) .IV-59

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Same as B-22■ [Rating: 5] The topic is a high priority, supporting Safety and Livability goals. Snow/maintenance and ADA issuesshould be considered in the project scope. Since the research objective focuses on compiling existing information into amore useful form rather than original research, we recommend that the problem statement be reworked and the budget beadjusted to $300,000. Note: B-22 and G-32 are duplicates.Research Advisory Committee■ Same as B-22. Which we also gave a score of 2.■ This research proposes to address a means of prioritizing needs, which has been an issue in identifying funding forpedestrian improvements. Some of the objects of the study are unclear, such as the ownership of pedestrian issues.■ Interested in alternative approaches to pedestrian accommodation. (Design)■ This is the same problem statement as B-22.■ This is a duplicate of B-22■ Yes, there is a need for research for the problem title. This is of nationwide interest.Item #83:B-11Integrating Existing and Emerging Transportation DataCollection Activities to Maximize Analytical Capacity(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 1 3 7 3 1RAC 3 5 5 14 11 7 4Standing Committee on Research■ Concept has merit, but this is way too broad and unfocused in its current form. Problem statement should be narroweddown so that something specific can be achieved. Making progress on this topic would be a great and much neededcontribution. It is unfortunate that the RNS is not effective. A focused RNS could be rated 5, but this RNS is perhapsbest left not rated.■ The submitter's response is essentially the problem statement with an increase in cost.■ Doesn't appear to be feasible within the timeframe and resources requested. A more detailed literature review is needed.Refine the scope.■ Although it would be valuable to integrate these data, there are many political and privacy issues that will make it verydifficult. Too expensive for possible outcome.■ AASHTO and TMG cover this■ [Rating: 2] The problem description reflects the general need, but the overall problem statement lacks clear direction andproducts. This would leave the project panel to decide the direction of $750K.Research Advisory Committee■ This research proposal is useful to larger markets.■ Bringing together traditional and emerging data collection and analysis activities could benefit our processes.■ Greater progress would be made through a cooperative effort among state agencies rather than a national toolboxapproach.■ There is a strong need and great potential benefits to optimizing and leveraging use of data sources within organizationsand between organizations. I agree with the review comments from FHWA, beginning with a synthesis anddocumentation of best practices would best launch the project. I agree with NCHRP that privacy issues can be a separateIV-60

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsissue, but think this needs to be included in some capacity. The researchers are from NY where greater emphasis hasbeen placed on data ownership and security. States need to better utilize the ITS data resources. Documenting dataneeds including data quality for the different applications can be difficult, but will provide valuable output from theresearch for practitioners. There is a value to having this work done at a National level. This project will be successfulby creating a framework and paradigm for others to build from.■ Based on past similar efforts, I question the ability of the research to produce results that can be implemented by state orfederal agencies.Other■ [Rating: 4] The Committee believes that data from emerging and existing technology could inform DOTs about whereelectrical infrastructure is needed for electric vehicles. This would also benefit DOTs in determining transit needs. Wealso feel that this information would particularly be useful for large rural states. The Committee suggests that it berefocused on the transportation project delivery process. The Committee ranks this statement in the second tier of theirtop priorities.Item #84:G-06Research to Improve the Structure, Process, andOutcomes of the Strategic Highway Safety Plansthrough Well Designed and Documented Peer Exchanges(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 4 5 3 1RAC 5 6 13 12 9 4Standing Committee on Research■ A peer exchange program for reviewing Strategic Highway Safety Plans could be a useful tool for continuousimprovement by the states. Practically influential with somewhat low funding.■ G-5 though G-7 seem intertwined■ This proposal is similar to G-04and G-05; suggest combining them into one proposal.■ All states need interaction with others to develop their staff and apply best practices. These workshops transferknowledge in a changing environment and the synergy prompts innovation and reduces wasted efforts.■ SHSPs are developed based on existing national guidelines and States' needs, and will vary by States. Peer exchangesmay not be really effective/useful.■ [Rating: 5] This effort will be useful to FHWA. The Office of Safety is already creating a program that could provide themechanism for implementing this template.Research Advisory Committee■ Developing a SHSP peer exchange processes seem to be useful but the current need and benefits we would receive fromthis project seem vague. SHSP best practices documentation and success stories from other state implementations wouldbe welcomed but it did not appear that this proposal was developing that information. If it did we would rate this projectmuch higher.■ Like G-05, a peer exchange is proposed and geared toward improvement and implementation of SHSP. The cost seemsreasonable, but the proposals have not established clearly the obstacles to implementation--perhaps it’s a lack ofresources and not knowledge or motivation.■ AASHTO RAC evaluated and revised the format of their SPR-required peer exchanges via a task force, with no fundingfrom NCHRP.■ Since the author states there presently is no “model for developing, implementing, and evaluating the SHSPs”, would apeer exchange be effective in this role? Until this can be answered then this research should not be undertaken. Peerexchanges, although useful, demand no agency accountability for federally mandated programs. In addition, the authornotes that the peer exchange reports often “sit on the shelf”.IV-61

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ It's time to stop planning to plan and creating documents that end up sitting on the shelf, and starting acting to resolve theproblem. $200K would be better spent elsewhere.Item #85:E-07Quantifying Long-Term Performance of Draped andFlexible Fence Rockfall Protection Systems(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 5 6 3RAC 2 7 7 11 10 6 6Standing Committee on Research■ Potentially significant safety issues involved.■ Recommend this as a Synthesis. Considerable savings could be realized by reducing duplication of already establisheddesigns and construction methodologies.■ Recommend consider a pooled fund for the states affected.■ F-07 would be a preferred study but it does not address maintenance and durability issues. These two can be combinedfor a more comprehensive project.■ The objective appears to be no more than collecting and summarizing existing information through inspections, surveys,a literature search and soliciting manufacturer information. It is doubtful that any maintenance data about wire meshtreatment would be applicable from site to site since each site tends to be unique. Potential Synthesis topic.■ [Rating: 4]Research Advisory Committee■ This project should be combined with 2011-F-07.■ This is a critical need. The consequences of failure in terms of safety and mobility. Should be combined with Problem F-07.■ Combine with F-07■ This Department does not have a need for the majority of these products. The condition/performance of these productswould seem to be easily discerned by visual inspection or experience of those installed. It would seem that the true longtermperformance should be something established by the manufacturers of these products.■ MSDOT does not have this issue in our stateOther■ [Rating: 3]Item #86:C-12MEPDG Inputs for Warm Mix Asphalts(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 3 5 3 2 2RAC 1 7 7 8 8 9 9Standing Committee on Research■ While I think the work is needed, I see several obstacles. In part, some of the characterization and comparison inproperties has/will occur during 09-43 and 09-47A. While the information is absolutely needed, I don't know that anational study will be able to capture the variations that individual states will demand be accounted for - work forproviding HMA inputs has generally been occuring on a regional or state project basis due to the differences in mixtureproperties related to source materials, state specifications, etc. This project would be excellent for focusing ondetermining if the models used for HMA are applicable for WMA, but to provide mixture- and technology-specific inputsmay be overly ambitious and not succeed in meeting the expectations of the users.IV-62

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ The University of California Pavement Research Center (UCPRC) is currently testing various warm-mix asphalts(WMA) and confirming the lab results with heavy vehicle simulator (HVS) testing.■ This study, while important, may be better addressed on a local level much like ongoing MEPDG implementation efforts.Many states may only see 2 or 3 technologies used by contractors, and will need to evaluate performance characteristicson their local mixtures regardless of outcomes from a national study.■ Each State DOT or Region will need to perform this research/testing on their own. In addition, warm mix technology isstill evolving in this country, which may change any conclusions deemed from this research.■ [Rating: 1] A national research project to develop typical WMA input parameters for pavement design is not warranted.Owner agencies or their contractors/consultants should conduct the required testing for the materials they use.Research Advisory Committee■ Each state should develop inputs for their materials■ Yes, need information for inputs■ Funding level appears insufficient to do this project.■ should examine WMA with RAP as well■ WMA should be tested and evaluated for performance, no altering the design methods to account for 15+ types of warmmix systems that may or may not work correctly. Not sure MEPDG inputs will be consistent with the WMA mode offailure■ There is much research being performed on the field performance and potential moisture issue with Warm Mix Asphalts.This study will determine the input parameters to be used in the new MEPDG that would be beneficial to all.■ Hold off on funding this study until the DARWin-ME is available and more program bugs are resolvedOther■ [Rating: 3]Item #87:C-15Quantification of Benefits of Including SubsurfaceDrainage in Flexible and Rigid Pavements(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 6 4 4RAC 1 3 9 11 10 13 2Standing Committee on Research■ Project would assist DOT's with choosing the proper locations for including subsurface drainage. A number of forensicinvestigations have revealed the drainage issue being the primary factor in the pavement failure. So it is appropriate toconduct a research study to quantify the benefit of a subsurface drainage system. The construction detailing and ensuringproper drainage may sometime become primary factor in the success of a subsurface drainage system. These may bementioned in the problem statement/ research objective and research outcome should extend to develop arecommendation to ensure proper drainage in a pavement system. Researchers may be allowed to propose more optionsto verify benefit of drainage system in the phase three.■ This research topic has already been sufficiently studied.■ Most states that currently use sub-drains are satisfied with their performance and are unlikely to stop using sub-drainsregardless of the outcome of this potential research.■ We believe the benefits of this research would be low. Potential Synthesis topic.■ Decrease in overall maintenance/rehabilitation cost to offset the initial cost of constructing the subsurface drainageIV-63

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsfeature. Continued monitoring after the 24-month research period may be required to better assess the true long-termbenefits (decreased maintenance costs, etc.) of including subsurface drainage.■ [Rating: 3] The research objectives are good and well needed. However, rather than attempting to use acceleratedpavement testing to determine the performance benefits of subsurface drainage, it is recommended the research make useof the Long Term Pavement Performance SPS-1 and -2 data. This will provide a more complete and realistic picture ofthe performance differences that may be attributed to the presence or absence of subsurface drainage systems.Research Advisory Committee■ There was extensive work done on exactly this topic.■ Difficult to duplicate a wet subgrade in the APT■ Cost appears high for phase 1 and 2.■ It is unlikely that the cost benefit of subsurface drainage will be quantifiable. The guidelines are not necessary becausethe decision is based on site conditions.■ Isn't this already available?■ It was concluded in the NCHRP Report 583 “ Effects of Subsurface Drainage on Pavement Performance: Analysis of theSPS-1 and SPS-2 Field Sections” that stiffness of the base layers influenced the pavement’s performance an not thedrainability of these base layers.■ This research was needed several years ago when the department decided to add an asphalt drainage layer on a systemwide basis, without knowing the benefits.Other■ [Rating: 4]Item #88:D-02Pavement Smoothness Acceptance Levels(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 3 4 2 2RAC 1 4 10 7 13 6 8Standing Committee on Research■ The work necessary to anwer the question, "how smooth is smooth enough," has indeed been done. Recommend that arequest be made of TPF-5(063) and AASHTO Smoothness ETG for guidance on where those acceptance levels shouldbe - it won't be the same for every situation.■ Not sure national uniformity likely.■ California is already doing smoothness research and implementation.■ There have been similar studies in the past, e.g. RN (ride number) as the best indicator of what people feel. Doubt thatthis research will be successful in linking long term performance to initial ride. Current profilometers can measureimproved ride performance beyond what can be felt by the traveling public.■ [Rating: 2] While the need exists to rationally connect incentive payments to public perception, the proposed researchapproach is a low priority. Focus should be aimed to deploy accepted and validated test standards; develop policyprovisions; implement best practices to align ride quality incentives with quality assurance policy; and deliver technicalguidance.Research Advisory Committee■ Relevent work however Ohio feels we are ahead of the curve and have a handle on the benefits of IRI baswedsmoothness specs.IV-64

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ MassDPW did panel ratings on these in the 1980's. There is no relationship between the user perception of roadways andthe IRI categories used to classify pavements from HPMS data■ Careful consideration will have to be given to choices of vehicles that the "public ride panels" will be riding in. Thepopulation sampling required to assemble "public ride panels" representative of the U.S. population will be quitechallenging.■ I am not really big on the idea of the ride panel. Its too opinion based and not fact based. I feel this money could be betterspent elsewhere. Ride Number is based on a panel rating. Why reinvent the wheel.Other■ [Rating: 2.5] Although a portion of this research has undoubtedly been done, the overall concept and need for a nationallevel study exists. However, the budget proposed is too low and the four regions inappropriate. Each class of highwaywould have to be evaluated for its own needs. This is likely something better done at a state level.■ [Rating: 1] The proposed research aims at developing a subjective measure (e.g., a ride number) as an indicator ofpavement smoothness.- Because of its subjectivity and reliance on individuals’ perceptions, it is unlikely that an acceptable measure of theproposed type can be developed for nationwide use.- The proposed subjective measure would not provide acceptable means for determining changes in pavementperformance (ride quality) over time- The International Roughness Index (IRI) is the common practice for measuring pavement roughness; research effortsshould focus on enhancing the calibrating procedures of profilometers and not on developing new smoothness indicators.■ Related to SHRP 2 R06 E - Real-time Smoothness Measurements During PCC Pavement Construction.Item #89:G-24Pedestrian Operations and Safety at SignalizedIntersections(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 3 2 7 3RAC 4 8 6 17 12 2Standing Committee on Research■ The scope of this project should be more defined. There are a number of pedestrian service and signal operations issuesthat are discussed; however the research objective seems too broad. To facilitate a more robust research effort, the scopeshould be narrowed to focus on a few key areas. Practitioners often struggle with finding applicable guidance foraccommodating pedestrians at signalized intersections. There is no related handbook or professional guidance-type ofpublication focused on this topic. A guidance document is needed of current best practices, and, as a next step, theunanswered research questions (which are not addressed through best practices) need to be prioritized and researched asappropriate.■ Combine with G-22?■ Suggest this be combined with G-11, G-17, G-33 and G-36.■ To be included in G-22.■ Trying to accomplish too many things within scope and budget. Scope duplicates several other proposals in list.■ May be some redundancy with G-11 and G-17.■ [Rating: 1] The project simply covers too much, and the scope should be reconsidered.Research Advisory Committee■ Merge with G-22.■ This project should be roled into G-22 proposal above.IV-65

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ There has been much research on this topic and it is not clear that this would be a good return on investment.■ Combine with G-22■ Combine with G-22■ There is a need to document existing methods and to develop new strategies for accommodating pedestrians at trafficsignals and signalized arterials. Transportation agencies need better guidelines to design and operate urban transportationsystems. This problem statement ranks medium in comparison to the others reviewed.■ Not much benefit for MS.Item #90:G-25Enhancing Critical Lane Volume Analysis byIncorporating Intersection Geometry(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 5 5 3 3 1RAC 3 7 15 17 6 1Standing Committee on Research■ This project improves upon a methodology that is not in wide use in many states. This method has some limitedapplications compared to the Highway Capacity Manual.■ [Rating: 4] This project is for a practical extension of the CLV signal timing technique for turn bays, queues, andunconventional intersections. The goal is to provide a simpler quicker alternative to Highway Capacity Manual Analysis.The use of service volume tables rather then critical lane analysis with the HCM does not provide a practical alternativegiven the context of the proposal approach. The area is important and merits a medium high priority.Research Advisory Committee■ Volume capacity at intersections is a significant issue in OK.■ The proposal appears to offer project development savings and operational efficiencies, although the operational benefitsare understated. Research approach lacks detail.■ It's not clearthat the current approach, given the use to which it is put, is terribly deficient■ SHA Submission (Operations)Item #91:G-17What Information Should Be Provided to PedestriansRegarding Pedestrian-Activated Beacons?(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 6 3 5 3RAC 1 3 11 6 15 13Standing Committee on Research■ While project costs seem relatively low, the benefits of such research do not appear to be great. While the researchobjective is sound, if prioritizing pedestrian projects, this effort should be on the lower end of the scale. This should bean MUTCD research project.■ Suggest that Problem Statements G-11, G-17, G-24, G-33 and G-36 be combined.■ The question is very important but agree with Panel on consistency -- research might be expanded to include all types ofpedestian crossings. (additional Richard Moeur comment): Agree that new signs may not be understood & needhuman factors testing. (example: the R10-22 in the MUTCD went thru 6 iterations before it was well-understood)■ [Rating: 3] A good project but relatively low priority compared to others. The project need to be refocused on what is thepedestrian's interpretation of the feedback message--do they fully appreciate and understand the fact that it is not aprotected crossing? In addition, what effect, if any, do the beacons have on driver behavior?Research Advisory CommitteeIV-66

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Could be a useful study - there is not an existing body of research on this topic■ Important but should be included with TCD pooled fund study.■ Not relavent because of the new MUTCD standards on pedestrian heads■ This research would provide additional information about what types of educational efforts are most effective.Item #92:G-16Improved Prediction of Light-Emitting Diode (LED)Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) Legibility(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 4 3 3 1RAC 1 2 9 9 18 6 4Standing Committee on Research■ At this time, priority is low; however with advances in DMS technology, more DOTs are installing high resolutionDMSs. Therefore, this project is relevant and has the potential to provide a great benefit to DOTs. The study should berefocused to include an evaluation of the impact of advanced sign features on overall message comprehension (to includelegibility.)■ This should be left to industry to improve■ It is important that the traveling public be able to read Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) messages, especially when DOTsspend significant resources to deploy them. Therefore, this is an important problem. However, $500k over 2 yearsseems a little excessive.■ [Rating: 3] This work would clearly be of National significance, and is appropriate for NCHRP. However, until there areclearly delineated standards for DMS, including pixel size, fonts, logos and colors, the work will face the same limitationas earlier efforts and rapidly be overcome by changing technology.Research Advisory Committee■ This would be a good study to perform, especially the benefits and legibility of using different colors. It would be good tohave this research to show when, how, and why you use color and it's impact to traffic.■ Not applicable to Field Operations■ Given that FHWA has recognized full-coloer DMS in the latest version of the MUTCD, evaluation of the LED legibilityis timely and appropriate.■ Newer technololgy of full matrix signs will provide much more flexibility in sign displays therefore thresholds for thesign characters and Led's should be standized.■ Should be performed by the LED and DMS industries.■ Good idea but this should be an industry-driven research■ The current technology used in Dynamic Message Sign, has it’s limitation with respect to maintenance, viewing fromobtuse angles and continuous operation during rain and snow. This new research might bring some of these issues to thediscussion table.Other■ [Rating: 2] Should be performed by the LED and DMS industries.IV-67

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #93:F-03Optimal Timing of Bridge Deck Washing to ReduceChloride Penetration(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 2 5 2 2RAC 1 6 9 11 11 5 6Standing Committee on Research■ Although removing salt before it penetrates into the concrete by washing a deck is useful, the washing of a deck will notremove salt that has penetrated into the deck beyond the concrete surface layer. Therefore, this research will have limitedbenefit on older decks that already have elevated salt levels, and the benefit on newer decks will not be as valuablebecause of the concrete quality being much better and salt penetration rates much low. This is a new topic that has notbeen researched. Because of the many variables that influence chloride penetration the project will not likely produceuseful results. This research is of interest to highway agencies who wish to perform preventive maintenance in de-icingregions. Though the statement only cites 1 reference by P.D.Carter, other research has been done by Rhode Island DOTand others. Unfortunately, chloride ingress into concrete is a long-term phenomenon, and to properly evaluate in thefield the benefits of deck washing would require many bridges and longer than 2 years.■ Weather & manpower availability dictate timing of washing■ California does not wash bridge decks due to environmental concerns.■ Combine with F-02 for total budget of $300,000■ Combine with F01. Consider expanding to more than just deck washing.■ combine with F-02■ Combine with F-01■ Maybe combine under F-01 with no additional funding.■ [Rating: 3] We agree with the panel reviewer's comments that this problem statement should be combined with 2011-F-01 statement for better results and coherent decision making processes.Research Advisory Committee■ combine with problem statement 2011-F-01■ Very little work has been done on bridge preservation.■ Suggest combining F-02 and F-03.■ By combining the last three statements, money can be spent more effectively and will provide better correlation acrosspreservation strategies and decisions that affect them■ Bridge decks are built with waterproof membranes to prevent such penetration. Some state DOT’s us salt brine as apretreatment before forecasted snow and ice events. Rain water in general performs a adequate washing or rinsing. SomeState DEP’s mandate 100% reclamation for such power washing activities, this makes it very cost prohibitive.Other■ [Rating: 4] Suggest combining F-02 and F-03IV-68

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #94:B-08Developing Adaptation Strategies for Impacts ofClimate Change to Transportation Infrastructure(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 4 5 5 3RAC 2 4 8 16 14 2 3Standing Committee on Research■ The problem description and proposed research approach are definitely relevant. Based on FHWA's and NCHRP'scomments there is obviously some question as to how much overlap there is with another study (NCHRP 20-83(05) thatis to start soon. I would recommend adjusting the scope and funding of 20-83 rather than spending the full $300K onthis. The focus on soil engineering (slope failure) and vegetation management (wildfire) makes this problem statement asubtopic of 20-83(5).]■ We need research developing adaptation strategies to respond to climate change-this research may be too focused (sitespecific & not applicable to other regions) and from the comments on the proposal it may be duplicative.■ This proposal represents an important issue related to climate change adaptation and response that is not being addressednationwide. The need is greatest for coastal states due to sea level rise, but all other states will have an interest inprotecting roadsides as weather patterns change.■ Too localized in scope■ Hold till 20-83(05) completes■ Definite need for this project.■ [Rating: 3] B-08 is potentially duplicative of NCHRP 20-83(05), although it does focus on fires and slope failures. Iwould recommend that the proposers should be asked to revise so that it is supportive of the 20-83(05) project, but notduplicate work.Research Advisory Committee■ The title is great, but the scope is only applicable to a few states. Ohio wouldn't get anything out of this work.■ The proposed research project would examine an adaptation-related issue that has not been greatly studied (slope failuresand wildfires resulting from climate change effects). While not a high priority, it is one that would be useful in assessingthe vulnerabilities and risks to infrastructure in Washington State.■ Project potentially better suited as a regional pooled fund study.■ Recommend that the objective #1 be broaden to include other topics such as rising sea levels, etc..Other■ [Rating: 2] The Committee believes the research objective is too narrow. The title leads you to believe that the focus isbroader. We believe the DOT's need a more expansive review. Additionally it is believed that this work may beduplicative of a shared university study under way in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. It also seems regional in scope.Fires and mudslides are generally localized on the west coast. Finally, the funding seems low.■ [Rating: 5]Item #95:G-28Safety Impacts of Publicly Maintained Rest Areas(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 6 2 3 2RAC 7 10 10 10 8 4Standing Committee on Research■ This is interesting work, buit these decisions will be strongly politically influenced. As suggested by the FHWAreviewer, the research should account for other commercial establishments.IV-69

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Increasing the privatization and safety of rest areas is an important issue.■ A very good topic, but some of the proposed tasks are hard to complete.■ [Rating: 2] While this research would be desirable to support decisions to maintain or close rest areas, the likelihood ofbeing able to quantify the safety impacts is low.Research Advisory Committee■ Rest areas are touted as needed for safety, but I'm not sure because unlike the 1950's, there are now many commercialopportunities for motorists to rest, eat, etc. Rest areas cost many millions per year ($14 million just in janitorial). Itwould be good to know to what extent safety is still a factor.■ There has not been studies showing before and after safety experience in safety rest areas. Therefore this research couldbe very valuable in comparing investments in these facilities versus other safety countermeasures. It would help prioritizeinvestments for maintenance and new construction.■ Decision makers and the public are making decisions about rest area closures without the benefit of knowing theexpected impact on crash risk. The advent of these facilities was to support driver safety as well as comfort. Thecommercial vehicle safety concerns should not be underestimated. (Design)Other■ [Rating: 4]Item #96:D-03Improved Test Methods for Construction QualityControl(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 5 5 3RAC 5 11 10 8 11 4Standing Committee on Research■ see SHRP 2 research program for activities that will address this need. It's resistance to application (largelyinstitutional/industry) more so than a need to improve test methods that's the problem here. There are advances in thetechnology which should be used to effectively monitor construction quality control. The problem statement is too broadand general. It should be focused on a specific area of construction quality control for example: moisture content or soilstiffness, and develop a problem statement specific to it. The high variability mentioned in the problem statement forASTM D698 is more of the method than moisture content measurement itself. Moreover, there are other problemstatements considered by NCHRP which deals with specific area of measurement (ex. Stiffness using LWD, NCHRP2011-E-04).■ California already has QA/QC test methods.■ A definite long term need, but will probably not achieve for 1.5 million. In our industry, once new testing equipment ismarket-ready, it is evaluated quite quickly. Would be surprised if there is market-ready test equipment that we are notaware of.■ [Rating: 4] There has been a need for better construction quality control and acceptance tests for a long time. Manytechnologies and ideas for improvements have been proposed but have come up short with respect to beingimplemented. SBIR and IDEA programs continue to fund test method development, and FHWA and state highwayagencies (through the SP&R program) have also made some progress in this area.Research Advisory Committee■ ODOT has in initiative to improve our project delivery and this should speed up processes.■ The concept of uniform test methods is one of extreme promise. Not aware of a nationwide quality issue directly relatedto erratic inspection tied to training.IV-70

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Good concept, but problem statement and proposed method of attack is weak■ I agree with the panel of specialists drawn from the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Materials in that this is a lowpriority research need. I also agree that the problem statement does not provide a clear objective or scope of the proposedresearch. What quality control measurements do they intend to improve with new technologies. ASTM D 698 ismentioned as a case in point, but what other test measurements need to be revised or replaced with new methods? Theproblem statement is vague.■ Not a good proposal - There is not a defined outcome to the research. The Subcommitte on Materials rated it VERYLOW and had concerns over the proposed outcomes of the research.Other■ [Rating: 3] This could be a very good study but it is not well conveyed in the problem statement. A synthesis of thissubject should be conducted first. Shopping or wishing for technologies is a good way to expend funds. Should start outtargeted from the beginning which a synthesis should be able to help do.■ [Rating: 1] The problem statement does not provide a clear objective or scope of the proposed research. However, itappears to aim at developing test methods for construction quality control of embankments/earthwork.- Extensive work on the subject has been done in the past; precise tests already exist for many of the quality indicators forconstruction materials.- Unwarranted large expenditures are proposed.■ SHRP 2 has three projects related to NDT techniques for construction QC: (1) R06B Evaluating Field SpectroscopyDevices for QC of construciton materials, (2) R06C Using IR and High Speed GPR for Uniformity Measurements ofNew HMA Layers, and (3) R06E Real-Time Smoothness Measurements on PCC Pavements during ConstructionItem #97:G-26Assessing the Influences of Roadway and RoadsideAttributes on Driver Behavior, Speed, and Safety withOnline-Deliverable Casewise Visual Evaluation (CAVE)Methodology(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 6 4 2 1RAC 5 8 14 10 9 3Standing Committee on Research■ Interesting topic. A concern is how we know collected behavioral data correctly reflect actual behaviors on the ground.Not a high likelihood of implementation.■ This is becoming a more important issue for many DOTs as functional design opportunities become less successful ormore expensive to implement.■ [Rating: 2] The research objective of this problem statement does not indicate the immediate payoff in terms of new orupdated methodologies. It also seems to be very focused on Casewise Visual Evaluation (CAVE) Methodology and maylimit / preclude other alternative research / evaluation methods.Research Advisory Committee■ Proposal is too subjective. No data is obtained for considereation, and the budget is too small to get it anyway.■ This is a good approach to advancing the use of CSD in project development process. It offer potential for a greater levelof understanding on driver behavior. Funding may be a little low.■ High priority...Very interested in this one! Performance based design guidance would be welcome. "Environmentalfeedback" to influence [driver] behavior is not a new concept; however, while anecdotal evidence is available, research islacking. (Design)■ I don't see much payoff from this research.IV-71

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsOther■ [Rating: 1]■ Related to L10, L10abc, L07, and L09Topic area might be addressed using data from the SHRP 2 NDS in the future,but there is no duplication in the project.Item #98:C-05Structural Design Methods for Alternate Pipe MaterialsBased on Equivalent Risk Factors(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 3 6 3 3RAC 2 5 6 15 15 2 4Standing Committee on Research■ It is recommended to wait until NCHRP 15-29 is published before considering this as a higher priority. Properinstallation of any pipe, regardless of its constituitive materials, is as critical as the design. Choice of backfill materialsand proper construction are critical to load distribution and ultimately pipe performance.■ Pipe culverts of this type are rare in California.■ Combine this project with D-12 and broaden the scope to look at criteria for alternate pipe design selection, etc. Totalstudy budget should be limited to $500,000 to address both objectives.■ [Rating: 4] This is an important project, and somewhat related to the D-12 submittal. It might be beneficial to combinestatement C-05 into D-12.Research Advisory Committee■ If this research gets approved, it must address the very real issue of long term risk due to fire damage. In areas of thecountry where wildfires are very common (like Oklahoma), this risk to the various pipe materials must be considered inany legitimate research on the subject.■ Perhaps this research should be tied to D-12. They both address the problems with pipes made of different materials.■ The decision to perform this research should be based on the research finding of the recently completed NCHRP 15-29 “Design Specifications for Live Load Distribution to Buried Structures” research project.■ AASHTO Subcommitte on Bridges ranked this as a LOW priority item. I like the idea of looking into the effect ofbackfill materials on Alternate Pipe performance. However, there is no mention of how these same factors affect rigidpipe which makes up the majority of our existing drainage structures. Additionally, because backfill materials vary sodrastically across the nation, it is entirely possible that the research would not look into potential backfill materials thatwe have locally in Mississippi.Other■ [Rating: 2] Needs more detail in objective to be viable studyItem #99:C-13Development of Guidelines for Consideration ofTemperature Effects in Rigid Pavement DeflectionAnalysis(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 5 5 2 1RAC 1 9 6 10 12 8 3Standing Committee on Research■ For several years running this was the number one research priority for the VTRC PaveRAC committee. I agree the topicis important, but I'm not sure the proposed work adds to what we already know.■ The research will provide important data which is needed in Caltrans for deflection measuring.■ [Rating: 2] While the research objectives are good and needed in the long term, the need is not urgent. A recentlyIV-72

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingscompleted FHWA study addresses the use of FWD data for rigid pavements in the MEPDG design process.Research Advisory Committee■ Ohio would be interested in the results but undertaking this research project before we finalize our move to the fallingweight deflectometer might be premature.■ In comparison to the other problem statements reviewed, this ranks low on the priority list. Furthermore, the reviewersindicated that several studies of this type have already been conducted.■ Beneficial study to those states possessing significant miles of rigid pavement.Other■ [Rating: 3.5] A lack of quantified data to support strict guidelines is needed. This has a profound effect on measuredcorner deflections and LTE. However, budget is too low and will probably not improve the body of knowledge thatalready exists unless expanded.Item #100:G-30Data Fusion for Improved Detection of CongestionOnset and Travel Time Estimation(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 5 5 3 3 1RAC 1 4 12 15 9 5 3Standing Committee on Research■ This is an extremely academic piece of research that would be better funded by NSF.■ Agree with TRB comment. The transferability of results are limited.■ Work will newly apply two seemingly relevant statistical theorems to the problem of congestion prediction. See attachedcomments.■ [Rating: 4] Proprietary data and algorithms are black boxes which one must buy on faith. It is better to use data andalgorithms that one knows the algorithms and methods for. Travel Time Estimation and vehicle classification capabilitiesof sensor are reaching new heights with the techniques developed under NCHRP 3-79a and the development of vehiclesignature sensors by Reno A&E, Eberle Design. and Sensys. In addition, the development of travel time sensors usingBluetooth signals by TRAFFAX corporation.allows an Intellidrive like traffic probe sampling data set to be constructed.The data fusion algorithms and techniques described in this proposal have been and are being successfully used in theDoD environment. The data fusion technologies described in this proposal combined with the 3-79a techniques wouldmake the construction of accurate travel time and congestion measures a “simple” turn of the crank. These approachescould then later be relatively straight forwardly adapted to add Intellidrive to the data fusion.Research Advisory Committee■ Detection and travel times are always a challenge.■ As GDOT provides trip time info already, the results of this research could be very useful to the Navigator system■ Private probe data companies have probably already conducted this analysis or could do it in a short time frame.■ Too mathematical without any real-world applications described■ Suggest instead the NCHRP Reliability IDEA program to address this need.■ Based on emerging technologies, I feel that it is important that we publish travel time/congestion information in a timelymanner. My main concern is this proposal is so complex that I don’t know how the final report will be comprehended.Other■ Generally related to Reliability and Capacity, especially C05 and L03 and L02IV-73

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #101:G-36Development of an All-User Detection-BasedIntersection Signal System Capable of Intelligent TrafficManagement(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 5 2 3 1RAC 1 5 8 15 9 7 4Standing Committee on Research■ This is an interesting piece of research, but there are a number of questions that need to be resolved about whether thereare detection technologies available that can perform the activities required for this project. It seems like additional workneeds to be done before this can be funded. This may be a candidate for the IDEAS program.■ Suggest this be combined with G-11, G-17, G-24, andG-33.■ With the focus on multi-modal transportation, traffic signals must manage all modes. Effectively identifying those modescan facilitate improved intelligent traffic management.■ Work will newly apply artificial intelligence paradigms, coupled with new hardware and field testing, to try to greatlyimprove pedestrian safety at intersections along with the intersections' efficiency. See attached comments.■ [Rating: 2] The problem with pedestrian walking speedscould be addressed by advanced pedestrian sensing technologies,currently under development. Then signal transition logic (perhaps from NCHRP-3-66 project and FHWA’s SBIR-366project) could be enhanced to take pedestrian detection and tracking into account.Research Advisory Committee■ Very interested in a new signal operation system for pedestrians.■ Yes, we must get dynamic real time detection to assist with increasing congestion■ WSDOT is interested in the development of a smart controller for operating and controlling intersections and improvingintersection efficiency and safety.■ U of MN has lots research going on in this areaOther■ [Rating: 4] States are interested in the Development of a smart controller for operating and controlling intersections andimproving intersection efficiency and safety.■ Related to ReliabilityItem #102:SP-04Accelerating Development of a Common DOT Language(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 2 3 8 1RAC 7 3 18 11 6 4Standing Committee on Research■ Do not recommend, there is value in the proposal but I believe it should be a subset under SP-05 rather than stand-alone■ How about English, with no acronyms??!!■ Recommend Synthesis; implementing the existing research is of more value than generating new research.■ Consider phasing the work and resubmit.■ [Rating: 4] Further development of the TRT would benefit states and FHWA. To implement any widespread usage of theTRT within FHWA would be an undertaking; however, for classifying data across multiple tools, and computerprograms, this is a good way to start. As of yet, FHWA does not have a working taxonomy for transportation data andIV-74

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsinformation.Research Advisory Committee■ Informational professionals in transportation need to identify which metadata scheme and indexing standard to apply toall resources and enforce use by all to enhance retrieval. Transportation taxonomies, thesauri are already in existence;but widespread use is negligible. This work has already been done in the field of education for educational learningobjects and resources.■ The results of this project would be a useful addition to MDT's Records management efforts.Item #103:B-12To determine and develop the Best Practices forConsultation under Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 2 6 2 4RAC 2 6 6 14 11 7 3Standing Committee on Research■ Identification of Best Practices and streamlining of the Section 106 review process are increasingly needed in culturalresource work. The scope of the study appears logical and the projected cost is reasonable. This study has the potentialto provide a valuable model for such reviews.■ Good idea, but needs more focus■ Suggest a synthesis.■ The Problem Statement should clearly state the need to uniquely meet Section 106 of the National Historic PreservationAct within existing Context Sensitive Solution guidelines.■ Not sure how it improves on the AASHTO practioner's handbook■ On the face of it, the problem statement sounds like a worthy project. But, the statement lacks specifics. I assume theywould address engaging both invited and entitled consulting parties, but this is not clear. Based on the changing natureof the projects and those it affects, determining who should be contacted to receive effective input varies considerably.The regulations do address this in a general way, but I think this is often a question when undertaking the Section 106process. This issue would need to be addressed as well as the approach to contacting organizations and individuals. Whatwould be the method used to carry out the study? In general, who would be contacted to address the research statement?How would the effectiveness of models be examined? The statement thus needs considerably more development.■ After reviewing the literature on Section 106, I cannot find a detailed process for engaging invited or entitled, consultingparties – only interaction points. This project has its merits. However, I cannot place this project very high.■ Consider fit in synthesis program.■ [Rating: 3]Research Advisory Committee■ the budget should be increased to $100,000■ This is low overall. Again, not a lot of need for this cost item. Also, it probably should be done under 25-25 as it is moreappropriate for a quick hit type of research.■ Other studies of "best practices" for Section 106 consultation have been done before and seem to boil down to "consultearly and consult often". This study does not appear to contribute significantly to better Section 106 practices.■ Synthesis topicIV-75

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ This is a relatively local issue and there are other higher priority projects.■ This is a very broad proposal that requests insufficient funding. The literature search is limited to Section 106-specificdocuments and the proposal may benefit from a broader search. Might be appropriate for FHWA STEP.Item #104:F-07Rockfall Fence Testing Guidelines(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 5 4 4 2 1RAC 8 10 10 9 7 5Standing Committee on Research■ Suggest combining with 2011-E-07■ Develop as a synthesis■ of possible interest to ROW portection■ If funded, combine with E-07.■ The standard developed in 2003 through NCHRP 20-7 appears to be out of date, and this proposal would develop aguideline and integrate the findings of the newer ETAG-027 standard. Integration of the older standard with a moremodern standard could be beneficial and would provide the possibility for newer fence designs in the US, a higher levelof public safety, and a reduction in the costs of rockfall fences. One of the other deliverables is a generic specificationusing updated standards, which may have some value.■ [Rating: 4]Research Advisory Committee■ This project should be combined with 2011-E-07.■ As a stand alone, there is not a research component to the topic, should be included in Problem E-07.■ This problem statement is to not to have U.S. manufacturers double test rockfall fence to European standards and U.S.standards. Since there are already acknowledged conflicting standards and difficulties for manufacturers to introduce newfence designs in the U.S., why would we spend 6 months and $50,000 to research the differences? Just change our U.S.standards to meet European Union standardized testing or break from reconciliation and just use the U.S. standards.Rockfall fence U.S. industry leaders should be brought together to solve their problem and come to consensus on whatwould be best for their businesses.■ Combine with E-07■ This Department does not have any installation of these types of structure; however, having uniform performanceguidelines would be a benefit if we ever had a need.■ This is not relevant to our state.Item #105:E-06Assessing Corrosion in Two-Stage MechanicallyStabilized Earth Walls(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 4 5 2RAC 2 2 10 13 14 6 2Standing Committee on Research■ It appears that construction methods may also need to be addressed for this type of structures. Reasonable projecttimeline and scope, and in my opinion, this research will attempt to determine the extent of corrosion the best waypossible which is on actual field structures.■ Steel elements exposed to air, moisture and potentially corrosive elements behind the 2-stage MSE wall panel systems (asIV-76

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsnoted in the proposal) warrant evaluation for long-term corrosion damage.■ low need■ [Rating: 3] This is a necessary study because collapse of MSE walls due to corrosion can impact the mobility and safetyof the traveling public. However, the proposed research approach in Task 3 is somewhat weak in that in-situ corrosionpotential and rate measurements may not be feasible due to configuration of the two-stage MSE wall.Research Advisory Committee■ 2 Stage MSE walls are not used in a scale that warrants a full blown NCHRP research effort.■ Would make a good pooled fund study.■ While the focus of the proposed project is slightly different than the current NCHRP 24-28 project, it is questionablewhether there are enough wall cases out there where corrosion performance data could be obtained. Nevertheless, twostage walls are becoming more commons and an investigation of this type of wall is warranted.■ MassDOT does not build any of these■ Seems under-funded for work described.■ Although we have not experienced corrosion problems with out mse walls, I am aware of other DOTs across the countrythat have. The problems that I'm aware of are generally at the face/connection. This research is specifically for an msewall type that would appear to have conditions that have a higher potential for corrosion. There is some merit to theproposed research.■ This is not currently a nationwide problemOther■ [Rating: 3] Long term information on these walls is lacking; this study would help.Grossly underfunded for work describedItem #106:D-10Optimizing Flexible Pavement Performance Based onAggregate Physical Properties(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 5 4 3 1 2RAC 1 5 10 12 11 5 5Standing Committee on Research■ This project will put the findings of a previous NCHRP study (4-30) and ongoing (4-34) to fill a critical gap linkingaggregate morphological characteristics to HMA performance. This will enable a more rational use of aggregates,increasing the use of locally available materials which are important aspects of sustainability and energy reduction andcost reduction. The project cost could be reduced or staged to fit into the overall program budget.■ There have been a number of studies done in this area.■ There has been extensive work done to related aggregate properties to performance.■ This is a major need. It is important for us to better understand how the interaction between aggregate and the asphalt inHMA ultimately affects the pavement performance.■ [Rating: 4] Enormous strides have been made in characterizing aggregate chemical, physical and morphologicalproperties. However, the weak link in advancing this aggregate research has been the tie in with field performance asnoted in this problem statement. In part this also addresses aggregate sustainability issues.Research Advisory Committee■ Very costly!IV-77

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ This has been an established research need for some time. This research need is a logical step in a series of ongoingresearch efforts dating back over ten years with the development of the AIMS device and all of the work done withICAR. This year AASHTO balloted a new test method for the AIMS device. Now the next question will be, what do wedo with this test information? This research statement appears to be the next and proper course of action. With thatbeing said, with the risk of expanding the scope, there should be at least some evaluation of RAP in regards to theaggregate properties being discussed in this research need statement. RAP oftentimes makes up a significant portion ofthe mixture, and the RAP properties are not well understood similar to the aggregate properties being evaluated in thisresearch.■ Has some merit. Other research does not have the details of this one. May only be the beginning.■ There is insufficient emphasis on the relationship between aggregate properties and pavement performance■ include RAP?■ Would like this study better if they didn't try to combine aggregate properties related to pavement performance and use ofmarginal materials. Just focus on aggregate properties related to pavement performanceOther■ [Rating: 3]■ [Rating: 1] The proposed research aims at developing quantitative relationship between the properties of aggregates andasphalt concrete measured in the laboratory and the in-service performance of the pavements.- The proposed topic has been addressed in an earlier NCHRP project and is being further investigated in a currentNCHRP project.- Extensive work on the subject has been done in the past or is underway; further research is unwarranted at this time.Item #107:G-10Retroreflectivity Standards for Transverse Markings(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 6 4 3 2 1RAC 4 15 9 7 11 3Standing Committee on Research■ I wonder how much information from longitudinal marking standards that go into effect this year can be applied totranverse markings. It makes sense to consider standards for transverese markings next. There is a need for this researchand this topic has high payoff potential. Of particular importance are areas with high volumes of pedestrian traffic■ This is an important issue in California. Suggest adopting the same equipment and process currently used to determinelongitudinal marking visibility. After applying the test regime, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the currentprocess as applied to transverse markings and then, if needed, modify it accordingly.■ low need, limited scope■ Would be much more difficult for DOTs to maintain minimum retroreflectivities for transverse pavement markings, ascompared to long lines, due to the high wear caused by traffic. The research may be successful but difficult to implement.■ [Rating: 1] Transverse markings are supplementary, and are not the primary source of information to road users. Whileadequate retroreflectivity should be maintained, agencies can use the values recommended for longitudinal lines as aninitial requirement.Research Advisory Committee■ Transverse markings should not be treated differently when it comes to taking retro reflectivity readings. No explanationwas given why there is a need to distinguish between the readings of the markings. This Problem Statement is given a 1priority level rating.■ We think this is already availableIV-78

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsOther■ [Rating: 1] The proposed research aims at developing procedures for measuring and maintaining retroreflectivity oftransverse markings.- Although different equipments are used for the application of transverse markings, measurement technology should thesame as that used for longitudinal markings.- The rationale for measuring and maintaining the in-place value is unclear; it may not be justified.Item #108:SP-01University-Level Education in Public Involvement(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 4 5 4 2 1RAC 1 6 12 11 11 6 2Standing Committee on Research■ Agree with reviewer comments that this should begin with a synthesis of available resources.■ Recommend a Synthesis of current practice/best practices■ Although public involvement is an important part of the planning, programming, and construction of transportationprojects, there are more pressing issues related to university planning and engineering curricula.■ A synthesis first would make sense■ Do a synthesis study first to collect information on existing public-involvement training resources.■ [Rating: 2] Although, public involvement tools and techniques are not a part of the core curricula for transportationplanners and engineers, the scope of this study is too broad. The fields of study should be focused on those disciplinestraditionally associated with transportation. If the other areas identified in the problem statement are explored andnoteworthy and public involvement training opportunities are identified, this information should be compiled as apossible resource. To increase saturation levels of public involvement tools and techniques into disciplines traditionallyassociated with transportation, the study should identify opportunities for integration into the core curriculum as well asstand alone elective course offerings. Also, the term curriculum should be clarified.Research Advisory Committee■ Highly agree that public involvement and communications in general should be a very strong part of the curriculum fortransporation students.■ The justification for the research is weak and not substantiated. Why is public involvement more important now than lastyear? The Obama Administration is more focused on making data available on line than in developing context sensitivedeliberative, community level processes.■ This project should be a component of Workforce planning rather than a separate research project. The AASHTO Subcommitteeon HR is already developing a template to conduct workforce planning which can be used by any DOT.■ See very little benefit in proposed research. Perhaps a synthesis of available training resources would be better.Other■ Related to Capacity, especially C01 and C08IV-79

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #109:E-04Modulus-based Quality Control in Culvert BackfillInstallation(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 4 9RAC 1 9 4 11 17 5 2Standing Committee on Research■ This appears to be similar to proposals and research undertaken in the past. It is not evident that additional research onmodulus-based quality control should be confined specifically to culvert backfill. Similar research is undergoing forsubgrade and it should not be any different for pipe backfill except few logistics which could be added after thoseresearch are complete.■ Agree with AASHTO subcommittee comments.■ [Rating: 2] While we agree with many aspects of the statement, it is not clear if there is a problem in the design or failureof culverts or the road above due to questionable soil stiffness/modulus values.Research Advisory Committee■ Soil modulus has to be tied to a stress state. None of the available field equipment can do this.■ Very good medium term research topic(should procter density be used for granular matls)■ Has little promise in advancing an area that is needed and does not address issues that have high risk in transportation■ The issue of quality control with culvert backfill is a definite issue; however, a different tool measuring a differentproperty does not really address the root problem which is poor construction techniques. There is some merit tofurthering the current research that would allow greater confidence in these newer/improved field measuring tools.Other■ [Rating: 3] Nuclear densometers are safe and efficient with a proven track record of results. We should avoidinflammatory language when discussing them. Their use in the field for embankments and pipe installation is wellproven. Several of the alternative gauges mentioned have poor records of accurate measurements through many studies.Item #110:D-14Reduced Energy and Carbon Footprints for SustainablePaving-Grade Concrete(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 5 1 6 2 1RAC 8 12 7 15 3 4Standing Committee on Research■ Sustainability is getting lot of deserved attention. Byproducts and recycled materials that can deliver the specifiedproduct and at the same time be beneficial to the environment would be desirable.■ Develop as a synthesis■ Need a tool for life-cycle assessment, which is going to be very useful in the future as carbon footprint will certainlybecome one of the design criteria.■ Iowa already uses 40% replacement with slag and fly ash■ I do not see the importance of this one.■ [Rating: 3] The problem statement needs more focus as there are numerous recycled and byproduct materials available. Asynthesis on the types of materials available, their geographical distribution, appropriate applications and known issuesmay be a better first step to guide more focused research.Research Advisory Committee■ Suggest combining with 2011-D-13IV-80

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ We have a host of issues with our concrete pavements that need to be addressed first.■ MassDOT does not construct concrete roadways■ Should be industry funded. Favor D13 approach to issue.■ The proposed research topic is very broad and not focused, and does not consider the overall energy footprint needed toproduce concrete, a fundamentally energy-intensive application. Evaluating mixes is a long-term item to optimizestrength vs. energy/carbon footprint could take years to address. In addition, in this and other states concrete is seldomused for new or rehabilitated pavements, therefore yielding limited scope for implementation.Other■ [Rating: 4.5] This has value given the emphasis on environmental issues. There is some concern on the lack of a plan onhow to do accomplish the project. It is probably underfunded as proposed.■ [Rating: 1] Should be industry funded – favor D-13 approach and let industry respond to their assessments■ [Rating: 3] The Committee believes that this may be a useful study because it is likely to be a cutting edge procedure inthe future. The DOTs should be in the lead in the research area for life cycle assessment. The Committee is concernedthat this may be duplicative of work already being completed by industry. After all they likely need to complete thisresearch to stay more competitive.■ Related to C09Item #111:D-13Development of a User-Friendly Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment Tool Kit for Sustainable Pavements(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 6 6 1RAC 1 7 10 12 13 1 5Standing Committee on Research■ very timely topic, but I'm afraid it would boil down to another pavement type selection tool - we have plenty of them thatdon't work now. Technology may not be matured enough to effectively incorporate environmental life-cycle assessmentinto the currently available life-cycle cost analysis tools.■ Caltrans is already moving in the direction of the proposed research; this research will compliment the efforts alreadyunderway.■ [Rating: 3] There is already a LCA tool - PaLATE (Pavement Life-cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental andEconomic Effects). If the methodology and / or analysis behind PaLATE is considered to have shortcomings, then thefocus should be on research needed to develop a sound and defensible methodology for life cycle assessment ofpavement alternatives as a pre-requisite to a user-friendly tool.Research Advisory Committee■ This is a good step towards going green which is an initiative at ODOT and should be investigated.■ Life cycle cost tools are readily available. The defensibility of those methods is questionable - that appears to be aproblem■ Bound to be very controversial between industries. Need to make sure that the science is correct. May need more timeand money to make sure research is defensible.■ Any improvement on an existing software has the possibility of making it a more useful program. A program PaLATE isalready in place and just add to it and try not to improve upon it.■ This seems premature until reauthorization provides more information on future environmental requirements.IV-81

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsOther■ [Rating: 3.75] This tool is badly needed. However, this project does not appear to know how to go about it.■ [Rating: 3] Will be controversial between industries, need to make sure science is correct and not underfund $ or time tomake sure defendable.Science is in very early stages and too soon to think this can be accurately quantified.■ [Rating: 2] The Committee believes that this project is not applicable to rural spread out states. We also believe that a lotof research has been completed and states are already implementing techniques and procedures. DOTs already employmany environmentally friendly features when developing pavement designs.Item #112:D-17Improved Installation Practices for PavementEdgedrains(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 5 3 2 1RAC 2 6 9 12 12 4 4Standing Committee on Research■ Would be a useful project to ensure that agencies are not creating a worse situation by improperly installing edge drains.■ The research proposal is focused on construction practice and needs to address cost effectiveness and service life benefitanalysis, also.■ Potential improvement to drainage technology■ [Rating: 3] This would make an excellent synthesis topic which would look at the construction practices as they pertain toedgedrains. After the synthesis is completed and has been reviewed then a better focused research needs statement canbe submitted.Research Advisory Committee■ Consider for NCHRP Synthesis■ Not certain if the anticipated research return supports the recommended funding level.■ In my opinion, we are aware of the potential problems are related to the installation of edgedrains. Many states thatcontinue to use edgedrains have specified inspection of the drainage structure prior to acceptance as well as amaintenance program to periodically inspect and fix potential problems.Other■ [Rating: 1.5] Based on the problem statement, the majority of this information is already known and implemented. Theproject’s impact would be limited.Item #113:G-12Business Logo Signing(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 3 3 4 3 1RAC 10 10 9 9 7 4Standing Committee on Research■ Interesting but not a high priority. Business Logo signing generates revenew, which should fund related research.■ Guidelines will be helpful as state DOTs expand the use of the space within the right of way.■ [Rating: 1] Lowest priority; this research is counterproductive. While a stated goal is to provide "supportingdocumentation" for the existing MUTCD criteria, a negative result will likely have little or no effect on the existingMUTCD criteria in terms of reducing the number of allowable logos or signs.Research Advisory CommitteeIV-82

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Not applicable to Field Operations■ WSDOT may benefit from this researchItem #114:B-10Field Evaluation of Reflected Noise for SensitiveReceptors Across from a Noise Barrier(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 2 8 3 1RAC 2 6 7 14 11 5 4Standing Committee on Research■ The problem described is a relatively common issue brought up in areas where noise barriers have been constructed.There are many facets to the problem – as evidenced by the FHWA and NCHRP reviewers’ comments. While support ofthe problem statement is warranted, it will be extremely important to further refine the research approach/scope as earlyin the process as possible.■ Agree with the reviewer. Narrow scope to study reflected noise by motor bikes.■ Caltrans has several approved absorptive sound wall designs that are available for use.■ We're not convinced that the proposed research will result in any useable information especially if the perceivedincreases in noise is truly psychological. As the FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model can predict barrier reflection thisproblem could potentially be addressed as part of problem 2011-B-03.■ May add benefit to Quiet Pavement studies■ [Rating: 4] This research is important to help advance the Livability initiative by ensuring state highway agencies do notcreate new noise problems while trying to improve Livability for others. The research will help state highway agenciesgain a better understanding of when it is necessary to use absorptive materials on noise barriers and other reflectivestructures such as retaining walls.Research Advisory Committee■ This is a low need. We really already have the answers to what they are proposing, so I really don't see a strong need forthis research.■ Agree with FHWA analysis to revise to obtain information desired.■ When noise barriers are constructed on one side of the highway, complaints if increased traffic noise from the opposite(non walled) side of the highway are almost guaranteed. Despite some references to the data showing that noisereflections won't exceed a standard distance ratio, state highway agencies lack field data and frequency analysis for thesesituations. This study would have high benefit to state DOT's and it could be incorporated into the Traffic Noise Modelthat is required to be used by all states.■ This problem of an increase in reflected noise can be studied and addressed with the same investigative tools that wereused to justify the installation of the first noise barrier.Other■ [Rating: 1] The Committee feels that the problem statement is not clear. We are unsure of the objective and end result.The Committee thought that the submitter already knew the answer and was just looking for information to back up theirposition. The committee supports B-03 as a noise submission over this statement.IV-83

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #115:B-17Wildlife Crossing: an Assessment of Current Practicesand Determination of Best Management Policies forDepartment of Transportation(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 5 3 4 1 3 1RAC 2 9 7 10 9 5 7Standing Committee on Research■ Although mitigation that reduces the risk of large animal-vehicle collisions is needed, I don't believe that this researchwill ultimately increase the implementation of effective mitigation. The recent report to Congress on wildlife crossingsincludes useful information on this topic.■ This is more of a regional issue than a national one.■ This is very important research for transportation agencies to continue. The statement of the problem is very wellwritten. Consider including white-tail deer to broaden the regional scope.■ Appears too localized■ This study is limited to Mule Deer, Elk, and Moose. As a result is is likely only of interest to western states. A pooledfund study would be more appropriate.■ This project is limited to three large mammal species that mostly inhabit the northwestern states. The data collectedwould not be applicable to eastern and southern states as they have different species of large mammals with differentbehaviors. I think this is more of a regional study.■ Effort would be premature on the heels of NCHRP report 615 of 2008. Unlikely to achieve objectives■ Consider adding white tailed deer to the study to make it more applicable for eastern states.■ [Rating: 1] There is lots of information already available or soon to be available – This is not necessaryResearch Advisory Committee■ Since Ohio doesn't have any of the species that will be studied for this research, we would not gain much for our state.This study would only be applicapable to a few states.■ Any research that measurable increases our probability of success in building effective crossing structures is critical tothe responsible use of public funds.■ Synthesis topic■ Study focuses on deer, moose, and elk, which suggests a regional pooled fund effortmight be more appropriate.■ This is a regional problem. Suggest proposing a new TPF project on this topic or approaching TPF-5(120) to ask if theywould consider addressing the research need through that existing TPF project.■ This is a very important issue for all states. There are many wildlife collisions nationwide with property damage, injuriesand/or fatalities.■ This study is focused solely on three species and is only examining the issue from a crash mitigation perspective and notthe natural resources perspective.Other■ [Rating: 3]■ [Rating: 2] The Committee believes that this research is not applicable to all regions. It is narrowly focused on moose,elk and deer. The Committee suggests that it would be more appropriate for a state pooled fund.IV-84

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Complementary to L07 (design features for wildlife management)Item #116:B-16Further Refinement and Implementation of a HabitatQuality Index(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 3 5 3 3RAC 2 6 10 13 9 7 2Standing Committee on Research■ Sounds like UDOT has developed a promising tool that other state DOTs might want to try to adapt. This is an importanttool that that has high implementation prospects across the country. I'd like to see more details on how the HQI isdifferent than others that have been developed, but this is a strong research need that deserves attention.■ Habitat evaluation methods are plentiful■ See NCHRP reviewer's comments.■ There are a number of Habitat indices existing already. Science isn't the issue, policy formation is.■ Add to NCHRP 20-25■ This project has good intentions, but I find it difficult to see how it will produce something that is useable throughout theUS in all habitats. Maybe concentrating on endangered species should be a preliminary goal. Some states may havealready done this type of habitat analysis as part of their Wildlife Action Plan.■ [Rating: 3] The need is high for this type of work. This would rate a 4 or 5 if the focus were on piloting the existing HQIto demonstrate regulatory buy-in, rather than expanding the HQI to other habitat types and a larger geographic scale withno guarantees that regulatory agencies will adopt it.Research Advisory Committee■ Low need and low benefit for all the states.■ This appears to be a regional tool and not likely to be broadly applied outside Utah. There have been many, efforts likethis to develop a quick, simple, scheme for judging ecological systems all over the country for a myriad of different uses.Most of them don’t stand the test of time because ecological systems are rather complex. The ones that do get used fit avery specific niche application and generally are developed (and thus valued) by regulators. This is not a good use ofnational research dollars in my view.■ The description of the research indicates that the approach is reasonable. All states can benefit from this research.Other■ [Rating: 2] The Committee believes that this study is not applicable to transportation. Additionally, it appears to be toospecies specific. We believe that the research will be quiet controversial and prone for error when done on a nationalscale.Item #117:G-15Traffic Signal "Yellow Trap"(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 4 4 4 1 3 1RAC 8 11 9 12 6 3Standing Committee on Research■ Not a priority.■ This problem statement is addressing a potential safety issue at signalized intersections.■ It has been recommended that existing yellow trap conditions be eliminated.IV-85

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ (Richard Moeur comment): "Yellow Trap" is typically not allowed in Arizona; however it is used elsewhere. Theresearch could help justify a nationwide restriction on yellow trap. The research could also determine whether the W25signs have any effectiveness at all.■ [Rating: 1] This research is unnecessary because the language of the MUTCD is clear regarding the yellow trap, andbecause the introduction of the flashing yellow arrow in the 2009 MUTCD has provided a viable way to avoid the yellowtrap and also to avoid using the W25 signs.Research Advisory Committee■ Use traffic control devise pooled fund study.■ Current software does provide solutions for this problem.■ WSDOT may benefit from this research■ Using a lead advance phasing instead of a lag phasing can avoid the yellow trap scenario.Other■ Topic area might be addressed using data from the SHRP 2 NDS in the future, but there is no duplication in the project.Item #118:G-01Noteworthy Practices in Crash Reporting and SafetyPrograms on Indian Tribal Reservations(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 6 4 2 4RAC 8 15 8 8 6 4Standing Committee on Research■ Capture of all crash data is important to understading causation and developing countermeasures. Limiting this effort totribal lands seems inappropriate. Would be more appropriate to assess best practices in a larger sense and finds ways toensure they are implemented everywhere.■ Synthesis topic■ Could be done as a synthesis at lower cost.■ May be a better synthesis candidate or pooled fund study with interested states.■ I think this would be a helpful document although, if the objective is to provide "adequate attention from state and federalprograms," the missing link seems to be the interface between entity systems/software/policy, etc since clearly sometribes are able to develop Tribal Crash Reporting Systems. It would be interesting to know if the tribes that have CrashReporting Systems are getting adequate attention from state and federal programs and if not, what is the problem. Thiswould be the important question because even if many other tribes use the models identified in this report to develop theirown Crash Reporting Systems, the core problem still remains.■ Consider fit in synthesis program.■ [Rating: 5] The absence of accurate and complete crash data in Indian Country continues to be a national issue. Researchsuch as this can assist in improving reporting.Research Advisory Committee■ Should be a synthesis study.■ Rated this low because many Tribal reservations choose to keep the crash information from showing up on drivingrecords and therefore do not report. The cost is too high for basically a synthesis.■ This is more appropriate for the state specific research programs that encounter these issues not for National research.Ohio would not benefit from this study.IV-86

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ "Need" is well defined, as are the objectives and proposed tasks.■ A worthy topic that needs to be combined with preventive measures t hat are shared with the local leaders.■ We're more focused on State maintained highways in Mississippi■ This seems more appropriate for a pooled fund of relevant states rather than a NCHRP study.Item #119:D-09Best Practice Guide for the Design, Placement,Compaction, and QC of Aggregate Bases(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 3 6 1 3 1RAC 1 9 10 13 8 5 3Standing Committee on Research■ A significant improvement of base aggregate construction is possible. Therefore such best practice guide would be veryhelpful to DOTs. This may also lead to finding of the specific areas of research in the improvement of aggregate basecourse.■ of possible interest to track construction■ This synthesis of preferred practices would be beneficial.■ Consider fit in synthesis program - as best practice not guide - but may be too big.■ [Rating: 3] Research product could be a valuable resource and is consistent with needs articulated by several stakeholdergroups.Research Advisory Committee■ Good applied research topic■ Synthesis topic■ This information is readily available through specification■ Problem statement might be better considered as a domestic scan proposal.■ Should be consider for TRB’s Synthesis of Current Highway, Transit and Airport Practices.■ Subcommittee on Materials rated this as a LOW priority because of historical research into aggregate base properties andconstruction. The recommendation of the SOM is in the form of a Synthesis of best practice which is much smaller inscope than the proposed research.Other■ [Rating: 2] As proposed this will provide very little benefit to the concrete industry..■ [Rating: 1] The proposed research aims at identifying good practices for design, placement, compaction, and control foraggregate base layers.- A great deal of information on the proposed topic is available in the literature; further research is unwarranted.However, preparation of synthesis of current practices would provide a good source of information for state highwayagencies.IV-87

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #120:D-05Tire-Pavement Noise as a Construction Quality Indicator(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 3 7 3 2RAC 1 7 11 12 12 5 1Standing Committee on Research■ Intersting proposed application of OBSI measurement, but this is really a uniformity-of-workmanship issue (I supportanything motivated to improve uniformity). A more appropriate surface-oriented tool might be texture measurement, orperhaps profile and ride quality already cover this.■ Suggest the research also tie into bridge decks.■ Pavement type and type of finish for PCC have the biggest impact on tire noise. Typical tire noise level ranges areknown for the various pavement types and PCC finishes. Don't see a major benefit being derived from this researchunless there are many agencies that don't care to have a say in pavement type or PCC finish.■ [Rating: 1] Currently the FHWA is investigating the development of an integrated texture-noise model using pavementprofiles as a surrogate parameter for tire-pavement noise which could than be used for assessing construction quality. Ifthese algorithms can be verified than the SHRP 2 project to control pavement smoothness during construction couldpotentially serve as a surrogate to controlling the noise-generating pavement characteristics during construction.Research Advisory Committee■ Relevant work maybe a bit premature due to the infancy of OBSI.■ Noise continues to be the #1 source of environment-related citizen complaints for state DOT's. If noise pavements can beimproved the potential exists to eliminate noise walls. This research in combination with a new transportation noisemodel has potential to reduce noise mitigation costs.■ Noise as a construction quality indicator? I didn't know FHWA was officially allowing different pavement types as noisemitigation. How is tire noise related to long-term performance?■ Correlating noise to quality or pav't performance would be difficult at best. Good indicators of pavement quality alreadyexist.■ In contrast to the opinions of the panel of specialists drawn from the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Materials, Ibelieve tire-pavement noise can be correlated to the overall pavement quality and its long-term performance. However,the scope of the proposed research needs to be revised to look specifically at the variation in the tire-pavement noise –not just simply the intensity of the noise itself. The proposed research does not mention variation. The variation in tirepavementnoise may provide a measure of pavement uniformity. Along with being smooth and dense, hot-mix asphalt(HMA) should also be uniform – these are the three desirable traits HMA pavement should have. Note: portland cementconcrete pavements should be uniform as well. We measure how smooth a pavement is with the International RoughnessIndex (IRI). We measure how dense a pavement is with laboratory tests on cores, and/or nuclear density tests. Why notinvestigate how uniform a pavement is with tire-pavement noise? While indicators of pavement quality are readilyavailable, a good indicator of uniformity is needed.Other■ [Rating: 1] It does not appear that tire-pavement noise can be easily correlated to the overall pavement quality or its longtermperformance. In addition, good indicators of pavement quality are readily available; developing a different indicatoris unnecessary.- No clear pay off is anticipated from the proposed research.IV-88

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #121:SP-03Develop Technologies for Unmanned Aircraft for StateDepartments of Transportation(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 4 7 1 2RAC 1 8 7 16 8 7 2Standing Committee on Research■ UAVs have been shown to have potential in several of the aplications mentioned in the proposal but have always hadnegative aspects that made them impractical for actual use. It is unclear what has changed to make this an appropriateproject now.■ Strongly support the development of the technology and applications to the transportation system. There are as many as44 companies and organizations currently developing Unmanned Aircraft (UAV) for use, the volume of informationavailable might suggest a Synthesis.■ existing in consultant community■ [Rating: 3] To summarize, while UAVs offer some benefits, human interaction would lessen the potential for errors andproblems with regards to the use UAVs.Research Advisory Committee■ It is already known that UAV's can be used for remote sensing. The military does it daily. Identifying the potentialroadblocks to actually implement a UAV in a state DOT would be useful. Additionally, identifying a COTS(Commercial Off The Shelf) UAV that could carry the necessary payload (medium format digital camera, GPS/INS, etc)would give a good indication of the feasibility before attempting to design and build a UAV from scratch. The conceptof a UAV for remote sensing within the DOT could be a reasonable alternative to traditional data collection usingmanned aircraft.■ WSDOT has explored the use of unmanned aircraft for avalanche control and is seeking funding for new research in thearea of rural traffic surveillance and accident investigation.■ Without cost comparisons with other similar data collection strategies, and an overall cost-benefit analysis, no need isseen■ There are many policy questions that should be addressed before serious consideration of funding for this project inapproved. These include: 1) In states with large amounts of tall growth vegetation (trees), the usefulness of this projectis doubtful; 2) In urban areas, the noise, takeoff/landing areas and airspace restrictions may make the project resultsunworkable; 3) What data is so time-constrained that is must be acquired in this method and not via satellite or aerialphotography; and 4) The public may think this is government peering into their backyards and private lives - anotherpublic relations issue for the all-pervasive DOT. This project should be held until these overarching questions can beaddressed.Other■ [Rating: 2]Item #122:G-11Countdown Pedestrian Signals: Is the Flashing HandNecessary?(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 6 3 1 4RAC 7 10 11 13 8Standing Committee on Research■ Should be scaled down, simplified and considered for the TCD pool fund research. This effort has relevance particularlyas localities are upgrading pedestrian signal heads to provide countdowns. The costs associated with this project seemhigh.■ Suggest that Problem Statements G-11, G-17, G-24, G-33 and G-36 be combined.IV-89

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ With the requirement for countdown pedestrian signals, it seems the flashing don't walk phasing may no longer benecessary. This might solve an age old problem related to pedestrian signal phasing.■ More research is needed on pedestrian comprehension of and compliance with concurrent flashing hand especially nowsince countdown display is standard in 2009 MUTCD. (additional Richard Moeur comment): This could havesignificant operational, legal, and safety impacts - research is critically needed.■ [Rating: 5] With the growing use of pedestrian countdown signals, the flashing orange hand is now sending a "mixedmessage" to pedestrians who can walk faster than the relatively slow walking speeds used to calculate the length of theflashing orange hand. Further, many studies have shown that pedestrians have a very low understanding of the meaningof the flashing orange hand. This research is critical to ascertain whether pedestrian understanding, and thereby safety,can be enhanced by using just the countdown without the flashing orange hand.Research Advisory Committee■ referr flashing hand work to the TCD pooled fund project.■ The research statement does not appear to address an issue that would have a significant return on investment.■ This proposal may be combined with 2011-G-24, 2011-G-33 and 2011-G-17.Item #123:G-33Automated Pedestrian Safety Analysis Using Video Data(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 6 6 3 1RAC 6 10 16 10 4 3Standing Committee on Research■ While pedestrian safety data is a major need, this project would not appear to be a near-term tool to deal with thisproblem.■ Suggest this be combined with G-11, G-17, G-24, and G-36.■ Funding seems insufficient for the scope. Should be a part of a larger project on video safety analysis.■ Need exists: A lack of pedestrian crashes does not mean that conditions are safe for pedestrians. A pedestrian safetyanalysis should go beyond just looking at pedestrian crashes.■ [Rating: 3] There is very promising research on pedestrian detection that will be able to warn and detect pedestrian atintersection. This problem statement would be moderate-high to high.Research Advisory Committee■ SHRP 2 and the University of Minnesota have related projects.■ The proof-of-concept is concerning here from the standpoint of automated detection has not been proven as a viable toolin a number of research applications. So without this fundamental concept existing I am hesitant to recommend thisproject. Also, nothing is discussed in the proposal with respect to deployment and widespread use of this research inorder for a state to determine information from muliple locations, analyze, and improve them. There definitely is aproblem identifying ped problem areas based on ped crashes since they are so rare, but this just seems like it is a budgetbusterwaiting to happen without the methodologies already established. HB - 4■ WSDOT could directly benefit from this research. The cost seems to be low. The conflict model will result in pedestrianissues being examined from a different baseline than most collision history based evaluation vehicle modes. Thischanges the decision point from where "potential" collisions may occur, vs. where actual (real) collisions have occurred.■ This proposal may be combined with 2011-G-24, 2011-G-11 and 2011-G-17.■ U of MN has lots research going on in this areaIV-90

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Not much benefit for MS. Don’t see the research objective mention anything to do with pedestrian behavior.Other■ The objective of this project is essentially the same as SHRP project S09: Site-Based Video system Design andDevelopment. However, the SHRP project is specifically focused on vehicles and does not include pedestrians, so there isno overlap.Item #124:D-06Modified Portland Cement Concrete for Crack FreeBridge Decks(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 7 4RAC 1 9 11 12 8 4 4Standing Committee on Research■ Considerable research has been done on cracking in decks and cracking continues to be a problem. We know the causesbut do not try to apply the cures. This project will not likely provide new information that will help reduce the problem■ California has on-going research in this area.■ Eliminating deck cracking has been studied extensively without arriving at a cost effective solution. Suspect that thelikelihood of success for this research is very low. Kansas DOT currently has an onoing research project focused ondevelping a crack-free bridge deck.■ May duplicate ongoing work.■ [Rating: 5] Bridge deck deterioration is an issue of major significance. Investing research funding in innovative solutionsto reduce deck cracking would be money very well spent.Research Advisory Committee■ There is an ongoing pooled fund study with Kansas■ Deck repair/replacement cost reduction.■ Other factors involved than just the cement.■ Ongoing poole fund study with Kansas with respect to construction of several bridge decks utilizing low cracking highperformance concrete.■ Use of polymers in concrete is not the practical cost effective means to solve the bridge deck cracking. We need to returnto past practices which produced crack free decks or post tensioned structures to ensure expected service life.■ Has some promise but does not addressother issues that affect concrete cracking in bridges■ I concur with the panel of specialists drawn from the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Materials insofar as ratingthis as a low priority research need. Engineers have been researching ways of increasing concrete tensile strength foryears in order to reduce cracking. This is just another spin on previous research in the context of crack free bridge decks.Other■ [Rating: 1] The proposed research focuses on the cement as the primary contributing factor to cracking of bridge decks.However, other concrete materials (e.g., aggregates, other cementitious materials, and admixtures), construction practices(e.g., curing), and design details also influence cracking.- NCHRP Project 12-37, Transverse Cracking in Newly Constructed Bridge Decks (NCHRP Report 380), addressedmany of the factors involved in bridge deck cracking; other numerous research projects have also studied this topic.IV-91

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #125:E-03Design and Load Rating of Culverts Under Heavy AxleLoads(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 5 3 3 4 2RAC 9 13 9 11 6 1Standing Committee on Research■ It is recommended to wait until NCHRP 15-29 is published before considering this as a higher priority. Properinstallation of any pipe, regardless of the applied loads, is as critical as the design. Choice of backfill materials andproper construction are critical to load distribution and ultimately pipe performance.■ Relatively high cost■ [Rating: 4] The problem statement identifies a concern that should be addressed, but at the current time, it is not clearhow widespread the issue is (i.e., is this a national problem today, or more regional in nature?). There is a need for aconsistent approach to evaluation and rating of culverts (all materials and systems), and to address the heavier axle issuesas part of this effort.Research Advisory Committee■ No point in doing this for culverts if the pavement and bridges will not take these loads.■ In reviewing this problem statement, I tried to locate the referenced research project, NCHRP 15-29. This related studyis just complete and the research report is not yet available. The findings/recommendations in this soon to be publishedresearch report should be disseminated first, and then if there is a perceived need, the problem statement could beresubmitted at that time.Other■ [Rating: 3] No point in examining this – our roads cannot take these loads. We should be studying the national cost toaccommodate the trucking industry’s idea that they should be able to haul whatever load they want and then examine taxstructures to have the trucking industry pay the increased costs.Item #126:G-34Quantitative assessment tool and conflict managementfor sidepaths(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 4 3 8 1 1RAC 11 8 17 8 3 2Standing Committee on Research■ Reading actual crash reports or performing observational study would probably be needed. How many states can becovered under the proposed budget? I agree that it would be difficult to locate crashes of this type even with the reportdiagram and narative. I'd like to know how they overcame this problem in Fla. The budget seems low for calbrating themodel in other states.■ Agree with the assessment submitted by the Traffic and Safety panel.■ More research is warranted in this area. This research will help quantify the level of conflict between bicyclists usingsidepaths and motor vehicle traffic. The results of this research could benefit many States and MPOs as theydevelop/modify their bicycle plans.■ Baseline study (Sidepath Safety Model) is defective. Scope does not properly identify critical safety and operationalissues. Insufficient funding for scope. Problem statement contains implicit assumption that proposed treatments will beeffective. High likelihood that final report will not provide objective guidance due to political and advocacy influences.■ [Rating: 3] The results from this study will be helpful in implementing any future guidelines or standards for sidepaths.This information can be used by states and local agencies to establish design their bicycle facilities and or shared usepaths.Research Advisory CommitteeIV-92

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Should be combined in C-20. They overlap each other.■ While WSDOT could directly benefit from this research, the problem statement is very weak and the objectives are notdiscernable.■ A little unclear as to the exact problem. However sufficient research, studies and related work exists for the safedevelopment of bicycle or shared use paths. This study does not represent a current problem that needs researching andhas been given a 1 priority rating.Item #127:B-13Impact of the Bridge Structures on Migratory Birds(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 6 5 1 2RAC 3 10 11 16 4 5Standing Committee on Research■ This is an important tool that that has high implementation prospects across the country. I'd like to see more details onhow the HQI is different than others that have been developed, but this is a strong research need that deserves attention.■ Could be useful information if it is unique to bridges■ The problem of bird mortality from striking bridge cables is best dealt with locally because conditions and species willdiffer.■ Not a bad idea, but not sure the study as described would advance knowledge much■ The ability to answer the many questions posed in just three years is questionable. Changes in animal behavior requirelong-term study, including a pre "impact" period of study to establish baseline or "normal" behavior. Time may be betterspent by substantially narrowing the focus of the study. Also, how would fatal impacts be quantified in the field unlesscause of death was directly observed? It cannot be assumed that the death of a bird was caused by the bridge structureitself unless the bird was actually seen hitting the bridge.■ Important, but generally localized issue.■ [Rating: 3] This proposal would rate a 5 if a decision support tool were developed to help identify potential problem areasfor bridges, rather than focusing monitoring on a single bridge site.Research Advisory Committee■ This is a low need for ODOT. Most of the state commented that they really didn't see a lot of need for this one.■ The proposal is overly ambitious for the budget, considering the huge range of variability of bridge characteristics andbird presence. WSDOT is not aware of mortality issues associated with migratory birds colliding with bridges.■ Refer topic to NCHRP 25-25■ This seems more appropriate for a pooled fund of relevant states rather than a NCHRP study.Other■ [Rating: 2] The Committee believes that this study focuses on a localized issue where cable stay bridges are prevalent.The Committee believes that there are more bird/bridge issues on a national scale to fund this project as stated. In orderto gain the support of the Committee the scope would have to be greatly expended. It also appears that there is someinformation already available from European studies.IV-93

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #128:E-02Field Verification of the Application of PartiallyGrouted Riprap to Protect Bridge Piers(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 5 7 3 1 1RAC 2 9 14 11 6 5 2Standing Committee on Research■ Insufficient detail is provided to fully evaluate the merits of this problem statment or how it would be addressed by thefunding requested.■ Agree with comments by AASHTO reviewer.■ Grouted riprap or riprap alone should not be used for scour protection of bridge piers.■ [Rating: 5] There is urgent need to validate the performance of partially grouted riprap in the field. This technology wasthe most promising scour countermeasure which was discovered during the European Scanning tour of bridge scour andscour countermeasures practices. NCHRP 24-07 (2) only performed large scale experiments to test this technology. Thenew scour countermeasure technology has to be tested in the field and has great potential to improve the scour protectionof bridge foundations. This study has a high probability of success.Research Advisory Committee■ Needs to have a state do this as part of development and implementation, not research.■ Perhaps better suited as an FHWA or a state-led project.■ The number/type of field verification sites seems to be too limited to validate the lab test. It would seem that some typeof limited research on currently installed systems may be a better place to start.Other■ [Rating: 2] Desirable, but seems this should be a FHWA or state project.Needs to be a trial project, not just research.Item #129:G-20Motorcycle Safety: Acoustically Enhanced Helmets andAccident Avoidance(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 9 4 1RAC 13 10 16 7 3Standing Committee on Research■ This is a very interesting study, but is still at the basic research level. It may become a very fruitful research area, but it isnowhere near application.■ Use a quarterback's helmet■ Feel helmet use, motorcycle visibility, and motorist awareness are more critical issues■ Industry should address this issue.■ More suited to the private industry than to NCHRP.■ [Rating: 1] The return on investing NCHRP research dollars in this effort does not look promising. Incorporating thesetypes of devices would have to be by the helmet manufacturing industry.Research Advisory Committee■ We feel that the manufacturers of helmets and the motorcycle industry would be best champions for this Research &Development.■ We do not have a primary helmet law and have a 70% non-helmet use rate in fatalities so getting motorcycle users andIV-94

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingseven the higher risk users for that matter to use this helmet especially assuming it is expensive seems to be a secondaryproblem for Ohio...■ The tie to hearing perception and collision experience is weak. The paper suggests that visibility might be a bigger factorin motorist/motorcycle collisions.■ Should be performed by helmet manufacturers.■ While motorcycle fatalities are on the rise, and are over-represented, this issue is not as big an issue in our state.Item #130:G-14Addressing Needs of Private Property in the MUTCD(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 4 7 6RAC 7 17 13 7 4 1Standing Committee on Research■ Not a priority. The NCUTCD has some work underway on this.■ This proposal does not seem to solve a current critical problem within the transportation system.■ Considerable work is underway on the application of the MUTCD to private properties.■ (Richard Moeur comment): There's a critical need for research in this area, but this does not seem to be a good problemstatement■ [Rating: 2] Low priority. Use of "surveys" in parking lots cannot definitively establish the necessary criteria. Further,the minimum letter heights on signing in parking facilities can be determined using existing criteria on legibility distance,perception-reaction time, and operating or posted speeds.Research Advisory Committee■ Not applicable to Field Operations■ This is not an issue for WSDOT at this time■ This would benefit all states.Item #131:B-14Does Direct Lighting from Vehicles Affect Nesting SeaTurtles?(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 5 8 2 2RAC 2 22 15 6 3 1Standing Committee on Research■ This may be a good research topic with a useful application, but authors don't provide a basis for their belief thatheadlights might attract turtles. Authors should have provided more detail on potential methods for determining whetherturtles are attracted to headlights vs. fixed lighting. Authors should consider a pooled fund study with other coastal states.■ Too unique to a few states■ Not of national significance.■ The scope appears more regional than national.■ A real issue for some states, but not all. It appears that collecting the data would cost as much as budgetted.■ Not enough states would benefit to justify an NCHRP project■ In general, this problem statement is better suited as a localized question for areas where sea turtle nesting occurs.IV-95

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsPerhaps more appropriately, local statistics should be collected regarding impacted populations of nesting sea turtles.Then this information could be reviewed to determine if there is a need for this project on a regional scale.■ Possible candidate for pooled fund study with better background information.■ Important, but generally localized issue.■ [Rating: 3] The study would have to be well designed to differentiate any effects of fixed lighting from the vehicle lights.Has FWS identified this study as a concern for sea turtle hatchlings?Research Advisory Committee■ It really only benefits a few states. They should seek some type of a shared funding pool for this type of study.■ WSDOT does not have nesting sea turtles and agree with the NCHRP review comment that this study should be fundedby a consortium of coastal states that have nesting sea turtles.■ Study is of regional interest - a pooled fund study might be more appropriate■ May be appropriate for a TPF project, but not a national need; not appropriate for NCHRP.■ This seems more appropriate for a pooled fund of relevant states rather than a NCHRP study.Other■ [Rating: 1] Although the Committee finds the study very enticing, we suggest that it would be better funded on alocalized level such as a state pooled fund. The study is not nationally focused and only a hand full of state would benefitfrom the results.IV-96