PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsOther■ [Rating: 3.75] This tool is badly needed. However, this project does not appear to know how to go about it.■ [Rating: 3] Will be controversial between industries, need to make sure science is correct and not underfund $ or time tomake sure defendable.Science is in very early stages and too soon to think this can be accurately quantified.■ [Rating: 2] The Committee believes that this project is not applicable to rural spread out states. We also believe that a lotof research has been completed and states are already implementing techniques and procedures. DOTs already employmany environmentally friendly features when developing pavement designs.Item #112:D-17Improved Installation Practices for PavementEdgedrains(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 5 3 2 1RAC 2 6 9 12 12 4 4Standing Committee on Research■ Would be a useful project to ensure that agencies are not creating a worse situation by improperly installing edge drains.■ The research proposal is focused on construction practice and needs to address cost effectiveness and service life benefitanalysis, also.■ Potential improvement to drainage technology■ [Rating: 3] This would make an excellent synthesis topic which would look at the construction practices as they pertain toedgedrains. After the synthesis is completed and has been reviewed then a better focused research needs statement canbe submitted.Research Advisory Committee■ Consider for NCHRP Synthesis■ Not certain if the anticipated research return supports the recommended funding level.■ In my opinion, we are aware of the potential problems are related to the installation of edgedrains. Many states thatcontinue to use edgedrains have specified inspection of the drainage structure prior to acceptance as well as amaintenance program to periodically inspect and fix potential problems.Other■ [Rating: 1.5] Based on the problem statement, the majority of this information is already known and implemented. Theproject’s impact would be limited.Item #113:G-12Business Logo Signing(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 3 3 4 3 1RAC 10 10 9 9 7 4Standing Committee on Research■ Interesting but not a high priority. Business Logo signing generates revenew, which should fund related research.■ Guidelines will be helpful as state DOTs expand the use of the space within the right of way.■ [Rating: 1] Lowest priority; this research is counterproductive. While a stated goal is to provide "supportingdocumentation" for the existing MUTCD criteria, a negative result will likely have little or no effect on the existingMUTCD criteria in terms of reducing the number of allowable logos or signs.Research Advisory CommitteeIV-82