PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 11: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 63 and 64:
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
show all

PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?