PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Research is not needed for this topic; implementation / project funds are needed.Other■ [Rating: 3]Item #71:C-18Continuation of NCHRP Project 22-23, Criteria forRestoration of Longitudinal Barriers.(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 8 3 2RAC 1 3 5 9 22 5 4Standing Committee on Research■ This should be delayed until more experience using the results of 22-23 is available.■ First part of research was impressive.■ End treatment manufacturer's should participate monetarily as well.■ [Rating: 5] Project 22-23 was extremely successful in establishing quantitative measures for categorizing damage andgenerating an innovative guide for aiding maintenance staff to identify critical elements in the field. This effort wasscoped to only look at guardrails. There is a need for two things. First, the recommended procedures and replacementcriteria developed in the 22-23 project need to be assessed in several agencies and adapted as may be determinednecessary. Second, there are several other types of barriers for which procedures and criteria need to be determined.Research Advisory Committee■ Guidelines to assist maintenance personnel in identifying levels of damage and deterioration to longitudinal barriers . . .to restore operational performance are not needed. The problem statement says that this is typically based on judgment. Itshould remain a judgment call due to many variables. Written guidance as described would tie our hands and necessitatepotential dramatic increases in spending. The evaluation is to be associated with steel post W-beams. There are manytypes of components and this would only lead to more research. The same statement can be made for their proposal toevaluate wood post systems. What about the steel posts that we use? The project proposes to cover wooden post systems,but it is unclear if the condition of wooden posts that have not been struck will be reviewed. It is difficult to determinethe level of decay a post has that is buried. A review of steel and wooden post integrity would be helpful a long with arecommended evaluation process. The proposal talks about overlapping damage modes and oftentimes more than onemode of damage will be present. This is true because there will be an infinite range of hits and varying materials sostudying a handful would be meaningless. They want to use component testing, pendulum testing, and computersimulation crash tests but no real crash tests or after the fact crashes in the field. The $300,000 and 24 months to studythis is too much.■ The initial project (22-23) is ground breaking research. This proposal is a logical next step. Nationally, this is a goodbuy.■ I would rather see the money spent on repairing or upgrading guardrail than funding this study■ This problem statement rates medium in comparison to the others reviewed. As our infrastructure continues to age,highway maintenance personnel need better guidelines for prioritizing maintenance needs. If the guidelines are tooconservative, unwarranted funding will be allocated to replacing barriers that are adequate. If they are too lax, barrierfailures may occur, which may result in increased injuries or fatalities.Other■ [Rating: 3]IV-50
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #72:E-01Culvert and Storm Drain Inspection Manual andManagement System(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 1 3 6 4 1RAC 5 5 6 17 10 6Standing Committee on Research■ seems appropriate to update the manual - $500k too much?■ Caltrans has it's own system and equipment for this activity.■ Important because some states that do not have much, if any in-house expertise or organization should have the Fed todepend on for research and management tools. Management of culverts like this will force states to have an inventory ofall structures and keep vital records.■ [Rating: 3]Research Advisory Committee■ Phase 1 should be funded but not Phase 2.■ The are almost 500 culverts alone needing major rehabilitation. Therefore this issue is very timely■ The Department has initiated a culvert inspection program, and I;m under the impression that other states have as well. Iwould not categorize it as an absolute need; however, there would be benefit to help refine the systems that are in place.■ Phase I yes, Mn/DOT does not need Phase 2Other■ [Rating: 3] Phase 1 okay to fund, do not think Phase 2 should be funded.Item #73: Design Options to Reduce Turning Motor Vehicle /G-35 Bicycle Conflicts at Intersections.(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 3 8 4RAC 3 6 9 18 10 3Standing Committee on Research■ There is a need to examine the standards for striping bike lanes from an objective, safety perspective. Deficiencies incurrent standards need to be looked at using crash data. This project is ranked low because it will not be complete in timeto update the AASHTO guide. NCHRP 15-37 Revising the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,the final report is under ASSHTO ballot. Does this document address this issue? Human error is likely the majorproblem.■ A Caltrans funded study on this topic is nearly complete. A recent NCHRP 500 Report addressed the same issues. Thisresearch is duplicative■ With over 710 cyclist fatalities and 52,000 injuries in the US in 2008, research concerning alternative designs to reducebicycle/motor vehicle conflicts at intersections is warranted.■ Could be a good synthesis study.■ Very critical issue, but funding is insufficient for total scope, and too many items are under consideration, some of whichare not in MUTCD or accepted US practice (bike boxes, bicycle signals, etc.) If rescoped to focus on what's typicallyused across the US, could be very useful.■ [Rating: 3] The proposed problem appears to be appropriate for the NCHRP. The potential payoff from research isestimated to be medium.The problem described is significant. More funding than $250,000 will be required to meet theall of the objectives proposed.IV-51
Page 1 and 2: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 49: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-

PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

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

Delete template?

Save as template?