PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 31: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 83 and 84:
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
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?