PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #125:E-03Design and Load Rating of Culverts Under Heavy AxleLoads(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 5 3 3 4 2RAC 9 13 9 11 6 1Standing Committee on Research■ It is recommended to wait until NCHRP 15-29 is published before considering this as a higher priority. Properinstallation of any pipe, regardless of the applied loads, is as critical as the design. Choice of backfill materials andproper construction are critical to load distribution and ultimately pipe performance.■ Relatively high cost■ [Rating: 4] The problem statement identifies a concern that should be addressed, but at the current time, it is not clearhow widespread the issue is (i.e., is this a national problem today, or more regional in nature?). There is a need for aconsistent approach to evaluation and rating of culverts (all materials and systems), and to address the heavier axle issuesas part of this effort.Research Advisory Committee■ No point in doing this for culverts if the pavement and bridges will not take these loads.■ In reviewing this problem statement, I tried to locate the referenced research project, NCHRP 15-29. This related studyis just complete and the research report is not yet available. The findings/recommendations in this soon to be publishedresearch report should be disseminated first, and then if there is a perceived need, the problem statement could beresubmitted at that time.Other■ [Rating: 3] No point in examining this – our roads cannot take these loads. We should be studying the national cost toaccommodate the trucking industry’s idea that they should be able to haul whatever load they want and then examine taxstructures to have the trucking industry pay the increased costs.Item #126:G-34Quantitative assessment tool and conflict managementfor sidepaths(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 4 3 8 1 1RAC 11 8 17 8 3 2Standing Committee on Research■ Reading actual crash reports or performing observational study would probably be needed. How many states can becovered under the proposed budget? I agree that it would be difficult to locate crashes of this type even with the reportdiagram and narative. I'd like to know how they overcame this problem in Fla. The budget seems low for calbrating themodel in other states.■ Agree with the assessment submitted by the Traffic and Safety panel.■ More research is warranted in this area. This research will help quantify the level of conflict between bicyclists usingsidepaths and motor vehicle traffic. The results of this research could benefit many States and MPOs as theydevelop/modify their bicycle plans.■ Baseline study (Sidepath Safety Model) is defective. Scope does not properly identify critical safety and operationalissues. Insufficient funding for scope. Problem statement contains implicit assumption that proposed treatments will beeffective. High likelihood that final report will not provide objective guidance due to political and advocacy influences.■ [Rating: 3] The results from this study will be helpful in implementing any future guidelines or standards for sidepaths.This information can be used by states and local agencies to establish design their bicycle facilities and or shared usepaths.Research Advisory CommitteeIV-92