The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 147-162

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 147... ... H-1 APPENDIX H EVALUATORS' COMMENTS FROM ROUNDS 1 AND 2 In both rounds of the evaluations of alternative design concepts, the evaluators had the option to provide comments along with their ratings and many did. Read the entire page →
From page 148... ... H-2 ● While the ability to run individual analyses is probably easier in the datum alternative, the configuration management of the software, databases, and results as well as the information management of the input and output data is significantly improved making larger and more complex analyses more feasible. ● Datum approach has higher probability of success (at least in the short term) Read the entire page →
From page 149... ... H-3 ● I do not believe that the simulation end state of the Datum alternative gives FHWA, FTA or FRA anything that they need. Instead, only the Screening Tools of that alternative would be of use to these three administrations. Read the entire page →
From page 150... ... H-4 ● If all capabilities are adopted the overall costs will likely be very similar when comparing the two approaches. But, I prefer the priority-driven approach, which by definition will lead to investment only if the need is there. Read the entire page →
From page 151... ... H-5 ● I am severely concerned about the impossibility of modeling intersections - FHWA project very often involve intersections. If this is not a possibility, then this option is much worse then datum. Read the entire page →
From page 152... ... H-6 ● Same very bad responsiveness as the Datum, in my view. H.1.2.5 Responsiveness ● Abandonment of legacy approach seems to abandon/ignore the regulatory requirements that necessitated the legacy tools. Read the entire page →
From page 153... ... H-7 development so ignoring these investments and building a model from scratch effectively wastes these monies. ● If the Datum end-state is achieved, the build sequence in the Datum would increase costs compared to a single build. Read the entire page →
From page 154... ... H-8 ● This is a difficult criterion to rate, as it is unclear what, if any, domain knowledge the software firm may or may not have. For this criteria, all the risk shifts to the software firm. Read the entire page →
From page 155... ... H-9 ● While the alternative appears to more responsive technically, there is substantial risks that certain regulatory requirements would not be fulfilled if left to the determination of a commercial entity. ● Of course this will be better - we are dealing with commercial models where the companies will have huge financial gain as a direct result of their responsiveness. Read the entire page →
From page 156... ... H-10 ● Substantial individual seat costs associated with these tools render this a non-viable option ● Both the recurring costs to the user base and the maintenance of accessibility to results inventories will be costly for both the agencies and commercial vendors. ● Cost is higher for the end-user, but the government will save developmental costs. Read the entire page →
From page 157... ... H-11 ● Despite using the results of the IMAGINE research work, Alternative #4 is more ambitious than the Datum approach, and is thus more risky. ● Smaller scale projects will need screening tools, which this alternative might incorporate (assumed yes) Read the entire page →
From page 158... ... H-12 ● Alternative #4 is more of a labor-intensive effort, especially in the short term. Because of this, there might be pressure to freeze the design as early as possible, and thus be less responsive to evolving needs. Read the entire page →
From page 159... ... H-13 H.2 Round 2 Comments H.2.1 Datum vs. Alternative #1 Datum vs. Read the entire page →
From page 160... ... H-14 o To increase technical feasibility of the Ground-Source screening tool in the Datum, I'd suggest digitized USGS maps as input, with automatic Terrain-Line generation, parallel to roadways and rail lines, at specified offset intervals from the road/rail. Read the entire page →
From page 161... ... H-15 ● Beyond the aviation sector, it's not clear how important this is (hence the low weighting) , but inclusion of the best from the canned international packages makes the datum better. Read the entire page →
From page 162... ... H-16 side (especially alternative fuels, life cycle GHGs, etc.) will be addressed. Read the entire page →

From page 147...

... H-1 APPENDIX H EVALUATORS' COMMENTS FROM ROUNDS 1 AND 2 In both rounds of the evaluations of alternative design concepts, the evaluators had the option to provide comments along with their ratings and many did.