PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ There has been much research on this topic and it is not clear that this would be a good return on investment.■ Combine with G-22■ Combine with G-22■ There is a need to document existing methods and to develop new strategies for accommodating pedestrians at trafficsignals and signalized arterials. Transportation agencies need better guidelines to design and operate urban transportationsystems. This problem statement ranks medium in comparison to the others reviewed.■ Not much benefit for MS.Item #90:G-25Enhancing Critical Lane Volume Analysis byIncorporating Intersection Geometry(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 5 5 3 3 1RAC 3 7 15 17 6 1Standing Committee on Research■ This project improves upon a methodology that is not in wide use in many states. This method has some limitedapplications compared to the Highway Capacity Manual.■ [Rating: 4] This project is for a practical extension of the CLV signal timing technique for turn bays, queues, andunconventional intersections. The goal is to provide a simpler quicker alternative to Highway Capacity Manual Analysis.The use of service volume tables rather then critical lane analysis with the HCM does not provide a practical alternativegiven the context of the proposal approach. The area is important and merits a medium high priority.Research Advisory Committee■ Volume capacity at intersections is a significant issue in OK.■ The proposal appears to offer project development savings and operational efficiencies, although the operational benefitsare understated. Research approach lacks detail.■ It's not clearthat the current approach, given the use to which it is put, is terribly deficient■ SHA Submission (Operations)Item #91:G-17What Information Should Be Provided to PedestriansRegarding Pedestrian-Activated Beacons?(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 6 3 5 3RAC 1 3 11 6 15 13Standing Committee on Research■ While project costs seem relatively low, the benefits of such research do not appear to be great. While the researchobjective is sound, if prioritizing pedestrian projects, this effort should be on the lower end of the scale. This should bean MUTCD research project.■ Suggest that Problem Statements G-11, G-17, G-24, G-33 and G-36 be combined.■ The question is very important but agree with Panel on consistency -- research might be expanded to include all types ofpedestian crossings. (additional Richard Moeur comment): Agree that new signs may not be understood & needhuman factors testing. (example: the R10-22 in the MUTCD went thru 6 iterations before it was well-understood)■ [Rating: 3] A good project but relatively low priority compared to others. The project need to be refocused on what is thepedestrian's interpretation of the feedback message--do they fully appreciate and understand the fact that it is not aprotected crossing? In addition, what effect, if any, do the beacons have on driver behavior?Research Advisory CommitteeIV-66
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Could be a useful study - there is not an existing body of research on this topic■ Important but should be included with TCD pooled fund study.■ Not relavent because of the new MUTCD standards on pedestrian heads■ This research would provide additional information about what types of educational efforts are most effective.Item #92:G-16Improved Prediction of Light-Emitting Diode (LED)Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) Legibility(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 4 3 3 1RAC 1 2 9 9 18 6 4Standing Committee on Research■ At this time, priority is low; however with advances in DMS technology, more DOTs are installing high resolutionDMSs. Therefore, this project is relevant and has the potential to provide a great benefit to DOTs. The study should berefocused to include an evaluation of the impact of advanced sign features on overall message comprehension (to includelegibility.)■ This should be left to industry to improve■ It is important that the traveling public be able to read Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) messages, especially when DOTsspend significant resources to deploy them. Therefore, this is an important problem. However, $500k over 2 yearsseems a little excessive.■ [Rating: 3] This work would clearly be of National significance, and is appropriate for NCHRP. However, until there areclearly delineated standards for DMS, including pixel size, fonts, logos and colors, the work will face the same limitationas earlier efforts and rapidly be overcome by changing technology.Research Advisory Committee■ This would be a good study to perform, especially the benefits and legibility of using different colors. It would be good tohave this research to show when, how, and why you use color and it's impact to traffic.■ Not applicable to Field Operations■ Given that FHWA has recognized full-coloer DMS in the latest version of the MUTCD, evaluation of the LED legibilityis timely and appropriate.■ Newer technololgy of full matrix signs will provide much more flexibility in sign displays therefore thresholds for thesign characters and Led's should be standized.■ Should be performed by the LED and DMS industries.■ Good idea but this should be an industry-driven research■ The current technology used in Dynamic Message Sign, has it’s limitation with respect to maintenance, viewing fromobtuse angles and continuous operation during rain and snow. This new research might bring some of these issues to thediscussion table.Other■ [Rating: 2] Should be performed by the LED and DMS industries.IV-67
Page 1 and 2:
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 65: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
show all

PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

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

Delete template?

Save as template?