Click for next page ( 29


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 28
18 in the analysis, increasing the statistical database to 39. The abbreviated responses provided by e-mail, received from four state DOTs, were not included in statistical processing but were considered as well where appropriate. We received responses from 16 states, including all T-3 states and 5 of the 6 T-3+ states. The balance of respondents who completed the study were consultants identified by DOTs of T-3+ states, including states that do not perform FIGURE 10 Geographic distribution of survey respondents as generated by the survey program. site response analyses in-house and researchers that were contacted primarily to obtain relevant information about the programs and/or models they developed. This study does not further identify the respondents to preserve the prom- SURVEY RESPONSES ised anonymity. The full details of the survey responses appear in Appendix The respondents represented DOTs/firms with a wide B. The authors have examined the responses for regional dif- variety of sizes; some were describing their own practices ferences or differences between DOTs of T-3 states and their and others the practices of their DOTs or firms. Some indi- consultants. The survey responses did not show trends that cated that their responses represented their own views and warrant the separation of the survey into subcategories by practices, and others indicated that their responses repre- respondent type. The following chapter presents a synthesis sented the practice of DOTs and/or firms with many engi- of the survey findings and are used to evaluate the current neers. Figure 10, generated by the survey program, shows state of practice. the geographic distribution of the survey respondents.