PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ MassDPW did panel ratings on these in the 1980's. There is no relationship between the user perception of roadways andthe IRI categories used to classify pavements from HPMS data■ Careful consideration will have to be given to choices of vehicles that the "public ride panels" will be riding in. Thepopulation sampling required to assemble "public ride panels" representative of the U.S. population will be quitechallenging.■ I am not really big on the idea of the ride panel. Its too opinion based and not fact based. I feel this money could be betterspent elsewhere. Ride Number is based on a panel rating. Why reinvent the wheel.Other■ [Rating: 2.5] Although a portion of this research has undoubtedly been done, the overall concept and need for a nationallevel study exists. However, the budget proposed is too low and the four regions inappropriate. Each class of highwaywould have to be evaluated for its own needs. This is likely something better done at a state level.■ [Rating: 1] The proposed research aims at developing a subjective measure (e.g., a ride number) as an indicator ofpavement smoothness.- Because of its subjectivity and reliance on individuals’ perceptions, it is unlikely that an acceptable measure of theproposed type can be developed for nationwide use.- The proposed subjective measure would not provide acceptable means for determining changes in pavementperformance (ride quality) over time- The International Roughness Index (IRI) is the common practice for measuring pavement roughness; research effortsshould focus on enhancing the calibrating procedures of profilometers and not on developing new smoothness indicators.■ Related to SHRP 2 R06 E - Real-time Smoothness Measurements During PCC Pavement Construction.Item #89:G-24Pedestrian Operations and Safety at SignalizedIntersections(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 3 2 7 3RAC 4 8 6 17 12 2Standing Committee on Research■ The scope of this project should be more defined. There are a number of pedestrian service and signal operations issuesthat are discussed; however the research objective seems too broad. To facilitate a more robust research effort, the scopeshould be narrowed to focus on a few key areas. Practitioners often struggle with finding applicable guidance foraccommodating pedestrians at signalized intersections. There is no related handbook or professional guidance-type ofpublication focused on this topic. A guidance document is needed of current best practices, and, as a next step, theunanswered research questions (which are not addressed through best practices) need to be prioritized and researched asappropriate.■ Combine with G-22?■ Suggest this be combined with G-11, G-17, G-33 and G-36.■ To be included in G-22.■ Trying to accomplish too many things within scope and budget. Scope duplicates several other proposals in list.■ May be some redundancy with G-11 and G-17.■ [Rating: 1] The project simply covers too much, and the scope should be reconsidered.Research Advisory Committee■ Merge with G-22.■ This project should be roled into G-22 proposal above.IV-65