PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #101:G-36Development of an All-User Detection-BasedIntersection Signal System Capable of Intelligent TrafficManagement(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 5 2 3 1RAC 1 5 8 15 9 7 4Standing Committee on Research■ This is an interesting piece of research, but there are a number of questions that need to be resolved about whether thereare detection technologies available that can perform the activities required for this project. It seems like additional workneeds to be done before this can be funded. This may be a candidate for the IDEAS program.■ Suggest this be combined with G-11, G-17, G-24, andG-33.■ With the focus on multi-modal transportation, traffic signals must manage all modes. Effectively identifying those modescan facilitate improved intelligent traffic management.■ Work will newly apply artificial intelligence paradigms, coupled with new hardware and field testing, to try to greatlyimprove pedestrian safety at intersections along with the intersections' efficiency. See attached comments.■ [Rating: 2] The problem with pedestrian walking speedscould be addressed by advanced pedestrian sensing technologies,currently under development. Then signal transition logic (perhaps from NCHRP-3-66 project and FHWA’s SBIR-366project) could be enhanced to take pedestrian detection and tracking into account.Research Advisory Committee■ Very interested in a new signal operation system for pedestrians.■ Yes, we must get dynamic real time detection to assist with increasing congestion■ WSDOT is interested in the development of a smart controller for operating and controlling intersections and improvingintersection efficiency and safety.■ U of MN has lots research going on in this areaOther■ [Rating: 4] States are interested in the Development of a smart controller for operating and controlling intersections andimproving intersection efficiency and safety.■ Related to ReliabilityItem #102:SP-04Accelerating Development of a Common DOT Language(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 2 3 8 1RAC 7 3 18 11 6 4Standing Committee on Research■ Do not recommend, there is value in the proposal but I believe it should be a subset under SP-05 rather than stand-alone■ How about English, with no acronyms??!!■ Recommend Synthesis; implementing the existing research is of more value than generating new research.■ Consider phasing the work and resubmit.■ [Rating: 4] Further development of the TRT would benefit states and FHWA. To implement any widespread usage of theTRT within FHWA would be an undertaking; however, for classifying data across multiple tools, and computerprograms, this is a good way to start. As of yet, FHWA does not have a working taxonomy for transportation data andIV-74
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsinformation.Research Advisory Committee■ Informational professionals in transportation need to identify which metadata scheme and indexing standard to apply toall resources and enforce use by all to enhance retrieval. Transportation taxonomies, thesauri are already in existence;but widespread use is negligible. This work has already been done in the field of education for educational learningobjects and resources.■ The results of this project would be a useful addition to MDT's Records management efforts.Item #103:B-12To determine and develop the Best Practices forConsultation under Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 2 6 2 4RAC 2 6 6 14 11 7 3Standing Committee on Research■ Identification of Best Practices and streamlining of the Section 106 review process are increasingly needed in culturalresource work. The scope of the study appears logical and the projected cost is reasonable. This study has the potentialto provide a valuable model for such reviews.■ Good idea, but needs more focus■ Suggest a synthesis.■ The Problem Statement should clearly state the need to uniquely meet Section 106 of the National Historic PreservationAct within existing Context Sensitive Solution guidelines.■ Not sure how it improves on the AASHTO practioner's handbook■ On the face of it, the problem statement sounds like a worthy project. But, the statement lacks specifics. I assume theywould address engaging both invited and entitled consulting parties, but this is not clear. Based on the changing natureof the projects and those it affects, determining who should be contacted to receive effective input varies considerably.The regulations do address this in a general way, but I think this is often a question when undertaking the Section 106process. This issue would need to be addressed as well as the approach to contacting organizations and individuals. Whatwould be the method used to carry out the study? In general, who would be contacted to address the research statement?How would the effectiveness of models be examined? The statement thus needs considerably more development.■ After reviewing the literature on Section 106, I cannot find a detailed process for engaging invited or entitled, consultingparties – only interaction points. This project has its merits. However, I cannot place this project very high.■ Consider fit in synthesis program.■ [Rating: 3]Research Advisory Committee■ the budget should be increased to $100,000■ This is low overall. Again, not a lot of need for this cost item. Also, it probably should be done under 25-25 as it is moreappropriate for a quick hit type of research.■ Other studies of "best practices" for Section 106 consultation have been done before and seem to boil down to "consultearly and consult often". This study does not appear to contribute significantly to better Section 106 practices.■ Synthesis topicIV-75
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:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 73: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
show all

PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?