PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsResearch Advisory Committee■ Most of this has already been done and is no longer relevant for research.■ No durations was given for the research proposal.■ The scope of this research will benefit WSDOT. The scope is very targeted and has a good chance of success.■ Do not see much benefit.Item #74:D-04Guide for Measuring the Response of PavementStructures(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 6 2 3 2RAC 1 3 6 13 11 8 7Standing Committee on Research■ An important and very timely project. The results of the study might save researchers a lot of time and money. Projectwill help agencies quanitify effects of various treatments/designs.■ Suggest a synthesis at a lower cost.■ Recommend including testing of some field sites in task 3.■ Consider doing as a synthesis.■ Recommend phase I only as a synthesis study. Phase II can be decided after the completion of phase I.■ Would be beneficial as States will need to instrument and measure response for local calibration of the MEPDG.■ Consider fit in synthesis program - as best practice not guide - but may be too big.■ [Rating: 3] Worth pursuing, but not of the highest priority.Research Advisory Committee■ FWD testing is well documented.■ Currently ODOT has test facilities' were we are undergoing studies with the same concepts in mind.■ Synthesis topic■ Would be informational, just not sure how many states would benefit from research on instrumentation acceleratedpavement facilities■ Recommend for a synthesis series■ Recommend as a synthesis project per HSOMt response. Decrease cost accordingly.■ Agree with Panel recommendation for Synthesis study.■ Good idea and timely since DARWin-ME will be available when the results of this study become availableOther■ [Rating: 3.5] A moderate need exists for this information, but I suspect much of this work has been done and not releasedon a broad scale.■ [Rating: 5] This project is rated a 5 if it is done as a synthesis in the NCHRP 20-05 series. If funded as a full researchproject, rating would be lower.IV-52
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #75:C-16Demonstration of a Cost-Effective In-Service EvaluationProcess for Semi-Rigid Longitudinal Barrier Systems(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 4 6 5RAC 1 5 3 10 18 12Standing Committee on Research■ There willl be challenges in collecting data on collisions w/o a crash report.■ [Rating: 3] The objective is worthy: we need to know how existing hardware is performing, but available in-serviceevaluation processes are not widely used, because they are time- and data-intensive. The proposed approach, however,does not offer significant hope for a more usable procedure.Research Advisory Committee■ When implemented in service reporting is potentially as valuable as the standardized crash testing.■ Consideration should be given to modifying and/or expanding the NCHRP full-scale testing criteria. In general, longterm experience with selected new products should be added to ASSHTO’s New Transportation Products EvaluationProgram. In reviewing new products, the agencies experience with similar products is discussed and should be available.Other■ [Rating: 4]Item #76:B-18Strategies to Reduce Arterial Fuel Consumption andVehicular Emissions(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 3 5 3 2RAC 4 7 6 19 10 3Standing Committee on Research■ MDF: Rating:2, Comments: Unclear to me how this project really improves on a growing body of work in this area. Idon't see how this will produce significantly different results from past work.■ We often argue that operability is a core means to achieve emission reduction-let's see if it is & where the most can begained! Asset preservation & prioritization can be a by-product too. State DOTs (including WI) are being asked toreduce their carbon footprint and contribute positively to greenhouse gas emission reduction. This is the one way toaccomplish that-but the procedures, measurements and analysis methods are as yet unknown-this would be a hugepositive step in that direction■ No need for additional research in this area.■ With the high volatility of fuel prices it would be beneficial to investigate strategies for improving arterial street signaltiming with resultant decreases in vehicle pollutant levels. The recently released EPA "MOVES" model should providevaluable input into this research effort.■ Good idea, but it seems thare is a lot of similar studies are going on.■ not focussed■ The timing of this project fits well with the expected requirement to use EPA model MOVES in two years, most of theresearch answers deficiencies in existing Air Quality and Transportation Models, especially in relation to Hybrids,Electric and changing vehicle fleet and real operational strategies that reduce emissions and fuel efficiency. The EPAMOVES model uses energy assumptions base on vehicle use in laboratories and is specific to fuel and engines ofvehicles. Driving on arterials with signals and delay' times varies by location the more information on estimatedemissions from travel on non-freeways that is inputted in MOVES or similar models the more representative of the regionand better reflects transportation control measures that will be effective and reducing emissions. The end product of thisresearch will provide the tools and strategies to address emissions from signalized arterials - something that is currentlymissing in the existing regulatory models.IV-53
Page 1 and 2: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 51: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-

PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?