PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsissue, but think this needs to be included in some capacity. The researchers are from NY where greater emphasis hasbeen placed on data ownership and security. States need to better utilize the ITS data resources. Documenting dataneeds including data quality for the different applications can be difficult, but will provide valuable output from theresearch for practitioners. There is a value to having this work done at a National level. This project will be successfulby creating a framework and paradigm for others to build from.■ Based on past similar efforts, I question the ability of the research to produce results that can be implemented by state orfederal agencies.Other■ [Rating: 4] The Committee believes that data from emerging and existing technology could inform DOTs about whereelectrical infrastructure is needed for electric vehicles. This would also benefit DOTs in determining transit needs. Wealso feel that this information would particularly be useful for large rural states. The Committee suggests that it berefocused on the transportation project delivery process. The Committee ranks this statement in the second tier of theirtop priorities.Item #84:G-06Research to Improve the Structure, Process, andOutcomes of the Strategic Highway Safety Plansthrough Well Designed and Documented Peer Exchanges(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 4 5 3 1RAC 5 6 13 12 9 4Standing Committee on Research■ A peer exchange program for reviewing Strategic Highway Safety Plans could be a useful tool for continuousimprovement by the states. Practically influential with somewhat low funding.■ G-5 though G-7 seem intertwined■ This proposal is similar to G-04and G-05; suggest combining them into one proposal.■ All states need interaction with others to develop their staff and apply best practices. These workshops transferknowledge in a changing environment and the synergy prompts innovation and reduces wasted efforts.■ SHSPs are developed based on existing national guidelines and States' needs, and will vary by States. Peer exchangesmay not be really effective/useful.■ [Rating: 5] This effort will be useful to FHWA. The Office of Safety is already creating a program that could provide themechanism for implementing this template.Research Advisory Committee■ Developing a SHSP peer exchange processes seem to be useful but the current need and benefits we would receive fromthis project seem vague. SHSP best practices documentation and success stories from other state implementations wouldbe welcomed but it did not appear that this proposal was developing that information. If it did we would rate this projectmuch higher.■ Like G-05, a peer exchange is proposed and geared toward improvement and implementation of SHSP. The cost seemsreasonable, but the proposals have not established clearly the obstacles to implementation--perhaps it’s a lack ofresources and not knowledge or motivation.■ AASHTO RAC evaluated and revised the format of their SPR-required peer exchanges via a task force, with no fundingfrom NCHRP.■ Since the author states there presently is no “model for developing, implementing, and evaluating the SHSPs”, would apeer exchange be effective in this role? Until this can be answered then this research should not be undertaken. Peerexchanges, although useful, demand no agency accountability for federally mandated programs. In addition, the authornotes that the peer exchange reports often “sit on the shelf”.IV-61