PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 25: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 77 and 78:
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?