PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 39: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 91 and 92:
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
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?