PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsspecification in nature need much more professional individuals to be involved.Item #69:B-19Travel Impacts and Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Ruraland Smaller Community Land Use Strategies(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 1 1 6 5 2RAC 1 5 6 7 15 9 6Standing Committee on Research■ The proposal states "The primary objective of this research would be to estimate the potential impacts on vehicle-travel."This needs to remain the focus, stopping with the word "travel." I strongly recommend eliminating the emissionscomputations and the sketch planning tool for now, and instead quantify the impact that rural land use strategies have ontravel behavior. Objective information based on observations would be a valuable contribution.■ Well thought out-addresses a real information gap. Very applicable to lots of regions/states. Much better than proposalB-15.■ The research does address rural issues that fill a gap in Caltrans information and rural agencies will benefit fromresearch.This is crucial information for implementing strategies to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.■ A holistic approach to greenhouse gases, land use, and transportation in rural/small communities would be of help tomany States. With EPA's continual efforts to reduce the thresholds for pollutants and GHGs, States will indeed strugglewith air conformity issues. The quantification of policy strategies to reduce VMT and GHG emissions could providevaluable information to States and MPOs.■ small payoff■ A growing body of literature is suggesting that congestion pricing and new fuel technologies are likely to have thegreatest positive impact on VMT reduction and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Research on land-use policies thatinfluence VMT have focused on urban areas, as the submitter notes, for a reason -- the majority of US residents live inthese areas. In the case of the proposed research, focusing on rural areas would have an insignificant impact.Considering the limited nature of NCHRP funds, they would best be used for other studies.■ [Rating: 4] FHWA is committed to including smaller and rural communities in the national efforts around livability,smart growth, GHG emission reduction, and transportation planning. This research would help to fill the gap on the levelof understanding for these communities and their role in these efforts and the effective strategies that can be employed.Research Advisory Committee■ Results could be useful, but proposed budget and timeframes seem to be excessive in relation to knowledge gained andits potential impact on the problem. Results of ongoing studies need to be examined prior to funding a broader studysuch as this.■ Since a majority of mobile source emissions are going to result from urban areas the intent of the project to focus on ruralareas is not a high priority for us at this time.■ Strong support within SCOE. Land use/rural issues are very different and difficult.■ The problem statement clearly defines the research gap/lack of research on land use strategies and travel behavior in nonmetrocommunities. The phased approach to the research would provide valuable incremental data for planningorganizations facing reduction objectives and planning challenges mentioned. The Phase 3 tool has the potential to makeland use stratagies by RPOs much mor effective.■ The research project is understood but not a problem in non-metropolitan areas hence all of the research in theMetropolitan areas. They mention "walkable" or "livable" communities in rural areas. Most people who live in rural areasprobably live there because they like being spread out otherwise they would live in a metropolitan area. One would thinkthat research for metropolitan areas could be applied to the smaller areas somehow, maybe not directly.IV-48
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsOther■ [Rating: 4] A large portion of travel is done in rural and small communities. Quantify, analyze and assign responsibilityfor GHG emissions in the rural and small communities would be beneficial to the DOTs. The Committee ranks thisstatement in the second tier of their top priorities.■ [Rating: 5]■ Related to C09Item #70:B-22Methods to Improve Physical Conditions for PedestriansAlong Existing Roads(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 6 4 2 3RAC 1 2 5 15 13 7 6Standing Committee on Research■ This research project would be a much needed first step, or a wake up call, first, by finding out the degree to which thiscritical topic is (not) addressed. Identifying what would be needed and how that need can be addressed are also critical.For now, the topic seems to be lost with no dedicated ownership. .■ Reduce scope and focus as a synthesis project. Not clear what the research will be used for or how the results will beapplied. We need to look at pedestrian issues-not sure this is what is needed.■ Lack of an adequate policy for sidewalks is a constant problem for Caltrans, and will only escalate in the context ofCalifornia's Complete Streets implementation effort, and various health, safety and environmental initiatives.■ Of possible interest to rail to help with Trespasser issues, related to G-32■ This type of research is warranted. However, the research objective is sketchy, and needs to be developed in more detail--for example, there is no explanation as to how "improving pedestrian accommodations will be identified and described"and how "The second phase of the research will evaluate how effective current practices are...".■ [Rating: 5] The topic is a high priority, supporting Safety and Livability goals. Snow/maintenance and ADA issuesshould be considered in the project scope. Since the research objective focuses on compiling existing information into amore useful form rather than original research, we recommend that the problem statement be reworked and the budget beadjusted to $300,000. Note: B-22 and G-32 are duplicates.Research Advisory Committee■ Education & media promotion will be essential to this effort. Emphasis should be on sidewalks near higher densityconcentrations.■ ODOT is already addressing some of the identified institiutional barriers. We already have an inventory completed forODOT facilities. Perhaps the benefit is to have it in a report for higher level policy leaders?■ While most pedestrian traffic collisions do not involve pedestrians walking along roadways, this research is needed tohelp provide more information about mobility.■ This is the same problem statement as G-32.■ This is a duplicate of G-32■ The problem statement identifies a lack of pedestrian facilities on existing roadways. The literature search is insufficientas it is limited to media reports and one survey. Pedestrian related accident data is available and not included. Ifdeveloped further, the statement may be resubmitted for consideration and perhaps better suited for the TransitCooperative Research Program.■ Under current ADA Guidelines, ped facilities are already being improved on all alterations to existing facilities.IV-49
Page 1 and 2: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 47: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-

PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?