PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 15: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 67 and 68:
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
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?