PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Reduce the cost■ Reduce funding to $400,000.■ It appears the need and benefits for the project are quite viable, although one of the endorsements encouraged notoverlapping work with other ongoing research with a subsequent reduction in funding to $400,000 for the same period.The results would have applicability to all states, although states with fewer rural intersections or limited right-of-way forlane expansion would not benefit as much as others.■ This research has been needed for a long time.Other■ [Rating: 5] Rank #1Item #15:20-68AU. S. Domestic Scan Program(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 3 4 8RAC 3 1 1 5 13 11 15Standing Committee on Research■ Good program but the information nees to be more widely communicated/shared■ This is a continuing project started in 2005. A “scan” is a four-part process for information exchange involving face-tofacecommunication for innovative insight into research topics. A good project.■ Consider use of electronic media to complete more scans at lower cost and package the technology transfer with webbased training.■ [Rating: 5] This continues the on-going effort to identify good practices in priority program areas and rapidly transfersthe knowledge concerning these to state transportation organizations. It is favorably viewed and has been readilyaccepted as being an effective means to accelerate the implementation of new and innovative methods as well as goodpractices. This Domestic Scan program is supported by both State DOT’s and FHWA. Further priority emphasis isprovided from the Administrator’s “Every Day Counts” initiative that emphasizes innovative technology and technologytransfer.Research Advisory Committee■ Can this data be shared in other ways - especially with the volume of information now available in various medias.Item #16:22-14(3)Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware usingUpdated Criteria(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 1 7 6RAC 2 2 1 6 6 17 15Standing Committee on Research■ This is needed for AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware■ [Rating: 3] This continuation would address a concern in current crash test procedures for cable median barriers (i.e.,conducting tests with two different median widths, which is difficult to accomplish at a single testing facility). If thiscontinuation is funded, the results of recent FHWA and NCHRP Project 22-25 analyses should be carefully consideredbefore conducting the proposed testing effort.Research Advisory Committee■ Safety is our first priority and we are starting to use a lot of median cable barrier. This research would gain us somevaluable information.■ Priority. Needed to evaluate effectiveness of existing barriers to see if we need to replace themIV-7