PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #128:E-02Field Verification of the Application of PartiallyGrouted Riprap to Protect Bridge Piers(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 5 7 3 1 1RAC 2 9 14 11 6 5 2Standing Committee on Research■ Insufficient detail is provided to fully evaluate the merits of this problem statment or how it would be addressed by thefunding requested.■ Agree with comments by AASHTO reviewer.■ Grouted riprap or riprap alone should not be used for scour protection of bridge piers.■ [Rating: 5] There is urgent need to validate the performance of partially grouted riprap in the field. This technology wasthe most promising scour countermeasure which was discovered during the European Scanning tour of bridge scour andscour countermeasures practices. NCHRP 24-07 (2) only performed large scale experiments to test this technology. Thenew scour countermeasure technology has to be tested in the field and has great potential to improve the scour protectionof bridge foundations. This study has a high probability of success.Research Advisory Committee■ Needs to have a state do this as part of development and implementation, not research.■ Perhaps better suited as an FHWA or a state-led project.■ The number/type of field verification sites seems to be too limited to validate the lab test. It would seem that some typeof limited research on currently installed systems may be a better place to start.Other■ [Rating: 2] Desirable, but seems this should be a FHWA or state project.Needs to be a trial project, not just research.Item #129:G-20Motorcycle Safety: Acoustically Enhanced Helmets andAccident Avoidance(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 9 4 1RAC 13 10 16 7 3Standing Committee on Research■ This is a very interesting study, but is still at the basic research level. It may become a very fruitful research area, but it isnowhere near application.■ Use a quarterback's helmet■ Feel helmet use, motorcycle visibility, and motorist awareness are more critical issues■ Industry should address this issue.■ More suited to the private industry than to NCHRP.■ [Rating: 1] The return on investing NCHRP research dollars in this effort does not look promising. Incorporating thesetypes of devices would have to be by the helmet manufacturing industry.Research Advisory Committee■ We feel that the manufacturers of helmets and the motorcycle industry would be best champions for this Research &Development.■ We do not have a primary helmet law and have a 70% non-helmet use rate in fatalities so getting motorcycle users andIV-94
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingseven the higher risk users for that matter to use this helmet especially assuming it is expensive seems to be a secondaryproblem for Ohio...■ The tie to hearing perception and collision experience is weak. The paper suggests that visibility might be a bigger factorin motorist/motorcycle collisions.■ Should be performed by helmet manufacturers.■ While motorcycle fatalities are on the rise, and are over-represented, this issue is not as big an issue in our state.Item #130:G-14Addressing Needs of Private Property in the MUTCD(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 4 7 6RAC 7 17 13 7 4 1Standing Committee on Research■ Not a priority. The NCUTCD has some work underway on this.■ This proposal does not seem to solve a current critical problem within the transportation system.■ Considerable work is underway on the application of the MUTCD to private properties.■ (Richard Moeur comment): There's a critical need for research in this area, but this does not seem to be a good problemstatement■ [Rating: 2] Low priority. Use of "surveys" in parking lots cannot definitively establish the necessary criteria. Further,the minimum letter heights on signing in parking facilities can be determined using existing criteria on legibility distance,perception-reaction time, and operating or posted speeds.Research Advisory Committee■ Not applicable to Field Operations■ This is not an issue for WSDOT at this time■ This would benefit all states.Item #131:B-14Does Direct Lighting from Vehicles Affect Nesting SeaTurtles?(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 5 8 2 2RAC 2 22 15 6 3 1Standing Committee on Research■ This may be a good research topic with a useful application, but authors don't provide a basis for their belief thatheadlights might attract turtles. Authors should have provided more detail on potential methods for determining whetherturtles are attracted to headlights vs. fixed lighting. Authors should consider a pooled fund study with other coastal states.■ Too unique to a few states■ Not of national significance.■ The scope appears more regional than national.■ A real issue for some states, but not all. It appears that collecting the data would cost as much as budgetted.■ Not enough states would benefit to justify an NCHRP project■ In general, this problem statement is better suited as a localized question for areas where sea turtle nesting occurs.IV-95
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:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 93: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
show all

PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?