PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Good concept, but problem statement and proposed method of attack is weak■ I agree with the panel of specialists drawn from the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Materials in that this is a lowpriority research need. I also agree that the problem statement does not provide a clear objective or scope of the proposedresearch. What quality control measurements do they intend to improve with new technologies. ASTM D 698 ismentioned as a case in point, but what other test measurements need to be revised or replaced with new methods? Theproblem statement is vague.■ Not a good proposal - There is not a defined outcome to the research. The Subcommitte on Materials rated it VERYLOW and had concerns over the proposed outcomes of the research.Other■ [Rating: 3] This could be a very good study but it is not well conveyed in the problem statement. A synthesis of thissubject should be conducted first. Shopping or wishing for technologies is a good way to expend funds. Should start outtargeted from the beginning which a synthesis should be able to help do.■ [Rating: 1] The problem statement does not provide a clear objective or scope of the proposed research. However, itappears to aim at developing test methods for construction quality control of embankments/earthwork.- Extensive work on the subject has been done in the past; precise tests already exist for many of the quality indicators forconstruction materials.- Unwarranted large expenditures are proposed.■ SHRP 2 has three projects related to NDT techniques for construction QC: (1) R06B Evaluating Field SpectroscopyDevices for QC of construciton materials, (2) R06C Using IR and High Speed GPR for Uniformity Measurements ofNew HMA Layers, and (3) R06E Real-Time Smoothness Measurements on PCC Pavements during ConstructionItem #97:G-26Assessing the Influences of Roadway and RoadsideAttributes on Driver Behavior, Speed, and Safety withOnline-Deliverable Casewise Visual Evaluation (CAVE)Methodology(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 6 4 2 1RAC 5 8 14 10 9 3Standing Committee on Research■ Interesting topic. A concern is how we know collected behavioral data correctly reflect actual behaviors on the ground.Not a high likelihood of implementation.■ This is becoming a more important issue for many DOTs as functional design opportunities become less successful ormore expensive to implement.■ [Rating: 2] The research objective of this problem statement does not indicate the immediate payoff in terms of new orupdated methodologies. It also seems to be very focused on Casewise Visual Evaluation (CAVE) Methodology and maylimit / preclude other alternative research / evaluation methods.Research Advisory Committee■ Proposal is too subjective. No data is obtained for considereation, and the budget is too small to get it anyway.■ This is a good approach to advancing the use of CSD in project development process. It offer potential for a greater levelof understanding on driver behavior. Funding may be a little low.■ High priority...Very interested in this one! Performance based design guidance would be welcome. "Environmentalfeedback" to influence [driver] behavior is not a new concept; however, while anecdotal evidence is available, research islacking. (Design)■ I don't see much payoff from this research.IV-71