PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ We have a host of issues with our concrete pavements that need to be addressed first.■ MassDOT does not construct concrete roadways■ Should be industry funded. Favor D13 approach to issue.■ The proposed research topic is very broad and not focused, and does not consider the overall energy footprint needed toproduce concrete, a fundamentally energy-intensive application. Evaluating mixes is a long-term item to optimizestrength vs. energy/carbon footprint could take years to address. In addition, in this and other states concrete is seldomused for new or rehabilitated pavements, therefore yielding limited scope for implementation.Other■ [Rating: 4.5] This has value given the emphasis on environmental issues. There is some concern on the lack of a plan onhow to do accomplish the project. It is probably underfunded as proposed.■ [Rating: 1] Should be industry funded – favor D-13 approach and let industry respond to their assessments■ [Rating: 3] The Committee believes that this may be a useful study because it is likely to be a cutting edge procedure inthe future. The DOTs should be in the lead in the research area for life cycle assessment. The Committee is concernedthat this may be duplicative of work already being completed by industry. After all they likely need to complete thisresearch to stay more competitive.■ Related to C09Item #111:D-13Development of a User-Friendly Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment Tool Kit for Sustainable Pavements(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 2 6 6 1RAC 1 7 10 12 13 1 5Standing Committee on Research■ very timely topic, but I'm afraid it would boil down to another pavement type selection tool - we have plenty of them thatdon't work now. Technology may not be matured enough to effectively incorporate environmental life-cycle assessmentinto the currently available life-cycle cost analysis tools.■ Caltrans is already moving in the direction of the proposed research; this research will compliment the efforts alreadyunderway.■ [Rating: 3] There is already a LCA tool - PaLATE (Pavement Life-cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental andEconomic Effects). If the methodology and / or analysis behind PaLATE is considered to have shortcomings, then thefocus should be on research needed to develop a sound and defensible methodology for life cycle assessment ofpavement alternatives as a pre-requisite to a user-friendly tool.Research Advisory Committee■ This is a good step towards going green which is an initiative at ODOT and should be investigated.■ Life cycle cost tools are readily available. The defensibility of those methods is questionable - that appears to be aproblem■ Bound to be very controversial between industries. Need to make sure that the science is correct. May need more timeand money to make sure research is defensible.■ Any improvement on an existing software has the possibility of making it a more useful program. A program PaLATE isalready in place and just add to it and try not to improve upon it.■ This seems premature until reauthorization provides more information on future environmental requirements.IV-81