PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

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