Click for next page ( 8

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 7
8 Transportation Practitioner Survey Of the 62 respondents, 47 indicated that they did not know of any IPM system applications within their agency's jurisdic- To supplement information obtained through the literature tion. An additional 10 respondents provided information re- review and to capture a broader array of practical information garding IPM system applications at pedestrian crosswalks. related to IPM system use and effectiveness, a survey ques- Only six contacts provided information about non-crosswalk tionnaire was developed and distributed to numerous state and applications of IPM systems. Although the low number of local traffic engineers. Specifically, the questionnaire was dis- affirmative survey responses was disappointing, it was not tributed to state traffic engineers from all 50 states, the District surprising because IPM systems are still a relatively novel of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; traffic or public works engineers treatment for public roadways. A list of survey respondents from the top 200 metropolitan statistical areas of the United is included in Appendix B. States; and to the ITE Traffic Engineering Council Listserv. A total of 865 contacts were invited to complete the survey. Vendor Survey The survey questionnaire (see Appendix A) was designed to capture information for a wide range of potential IPM system To supplement the information obtained from both the litera- applications (e.g., construction zones, highwayrail cross- ture review and the transportation practitioner questionnaire, ings, horizontal curves, adverse weather, multiple-turn lanes, a comprehensive informal survey of IPM vendors was con- merge locations, variable-width lanes, tunnels, intersection ducted (a list of IPM system vendor contacts is included in stop bars, left-turn restrictions, restricted and emergency use Appendix C). The purpose of the vendor survey was twofold: lanes, vehicle and truck inspection points, environmentally (1) to identify additional IPM system applications that were sensitive areas, and other applications). The survey question- not uncovered through the literature review or transporta- naire intentionally omitted pedestrian crosswalk applications tion practitioner survey, and (2) to provide detailed product to avoid duplication of previously documented findings. information including technical specifications, operational performance, maintenance requirements, and system costs. Following brief introductory material describing the proj- In some cases, the vendor contacts were able to provide ad- ect background and objectives, survey respondents were ditional public agency transportation practitioner points of asked to describe IPM system contact for specific applications. In addition, vendor contacts provided information about potential IPM system applica- Applications in their jurisdiction (and the characteris- tions that are not yet field-tested but are in the conceptual tics of the facility that hosts the IPM system), stage. Technology and respective characteristics, Installation and construction methods and challenges, Information obtained through this vendor survey may re- Operation modes, flect an inherent bias. To minimize this bias, information was Maintenance requirements, solicited from a wide range of vendors and tempered with in- Costs, and formation obtained by public agency transportation practi- Perceived and measured effectiveness. tioners to the extent possible. In an attempt to achieve a higher response rate and to ex- REPORT ORGANIZATION pedite return, this survey was distributed electronically. Each contact was sent an invitation e-mail with a brief description Following the introductory information in this chapter, chap- of the synthesis project and instructions on how to locate and ter two describes the state of IPM technology, including tech- begin the survey. The online survey was designed with a gate- nology characteristics, standards, and guidelines for use, and way feature that allowed each invitee to log in to the survey notable experiences from historical IPM system applications. using his or her e-mail address and a unique identification Chapter three details experiences from more recent IPM sys- number (which was provided in the invitation e-mail). In tem applications, including system and facility characteris- addition, a persistence feature was used to allow the respon- tics, operation modes, installation and construction methods, dent to close the survey and return to it at a later time using maintenance requirements, and system costs, as well as the login information provided. The gateway and persistence perceived and measured effectiveness. Applications are cate- features also allowed a respondent to forward the survey to gorized by their intent: to warn, to guide, to regulate, or to another individual for full or partial completion. provide illumination for road users. Chapter four concludes the report with a summary of key findings and provides appli- Despite attempts to encourage response, only 62 of the 865 cable recommendations based on the information obtained in invited contacts completed the survey (7.2% response rate). this synthesis effort.