Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Current Hazardous Materials Transportation Research and Future Needs April 17, 2012 104 Cost not considered Score = Benefit only Score = (Research Priority)(0.25) + (Significance of Expected Outcome)(0.2) + (Practical Implementation Potential)(0.15) + (Clarity of Deliverables)(0.05) + (Primary Stakeholder Focus)(0.05) + (Modal Applicability)(0.05) + (Material Focus)(0.05) Score = (20)(0.25) + (60)(0.2) + (100)(0.15) + (70)(0.10) + (60)(0.05) + (60)(0.05) + (100)(0.05) + (60)(0.15) = 50.00 Cost incorporated as a project attribute Score = Benefit including cost component Score = (Research Priority)(0.25) + (Significance of Expected Outcome)(0.2) + (Practical Implementation Potential)(0.15) + (Clarity of Deliverables)(0.05) + (Primary Stakeholder Focus)(0.05) + (Modal Applicability)(0.05) + (Material Focus)(0.05) + (Project budget)(0.15) Score = (20)(0.25) + (60)(0.2) + (100)(0.15) + (70)(0.10) + (60)(0.05) + (60)(0.05) + (100)(0.05) + (60)(0.15) = 59.00 Uses benefit-cost ratio Score = Benefit / log(Project budget) Score = [ (Research Priority)(0.25) + (Significance of Expected Outcome)(0.2) + (Practical Implementation Potential)(0.15) + (Clarity of Deliverables)(0.05) + (Primary Stakeholder Focus)(0.05) + (Modal Applicability)(0.05) + (Material Focus)(0.05) ] / log(Project budget) Score = [ (20)(0.25) + (60)(0.2) + (100)(0.15) + (70)(0.10) + (60)(0.05) + (60)(0.05) + (100)(0.05) ] / log(60) = 28.12 In developing the framework, two other constructs were considered that relate to a tiered approach, rather than the integrated approach presented here. In the first, there would be two tiers that would prioritize on one set of attributes and then use a second set of attributes to order those in the first set. In the second approach, there would be a separate prioritization among a set of broad areas such as data, emergency planning, and first response (the three areas listed in TRB Special Report 283), with sub-prioritization performed within them. Ultimately, the project team believed that the framework attributes and uneven weightings shown in Table 6 adequately incorporate the benefits of these alternative approaches. In practice, the HMCRP Technical Oversight Panel or any other research-sponsoring organization could begin their deliberations on prioritization with each participant scoring each project independently and then coming together for discussion. Alternatively, the entire process could be handled as a group exercise. 8. Prioritized Research Projects The research projects described in Section 6.3 were ranked using the prioritization framework presented in Section 7. The project team members independently rated each attribute for each project and then these were collectively reviewed and discussed to reach a consensus. The projects shown in Table 7 are sorted based on the framework without the Project Budget attribute, but the ranks and scores that include the cost attribute are also shown. The first column in Table 7 lists the section in this report that contains the research project statement. The scores that the project team assigned to each attribute for each project are provided in Appendix C.
Current Hazardous Materials Transportation Research and Future Needs April 17, 2012 105 Table 7. Prioritized Research Projects Section Project Overall Score Rank Excl. Cost Incl. Cost Using B/C Excl. Cost Incl. Cost Using B/C 6.3.1.1 Identifying Sources and Types of Undeclared Hazmat 78.50 89.00 34.12 1 1 1 6.3.1.2 Human Factors Issues for Hazardous Cargo Handling 75.50 84.50 31.49 2 2 3 6.3.2.1 Improving Local Emergency Planning Committees 72.50 83.00 31.51 3 3 2 6.3.7.1 Develop Guidelines for Testing, Maintaining, and Operating Chemical Transfer Hoses 64.00 71.50 25.84 4 5 5 6.3.2.2 Initial Actions by Hazmat First Responders 63.50 71.00 25.63 5 6 6 6.3.4.1 Addressing Acquisition of Proprietary Hazmat Commodity Flow Data 61.50 73.50 28.26 6 4 4 6.3.5.1 Travel Times of Hazmat in Waterways 58.50 69.00 25.42 7 7 7 6.3.9.2 Development of Guidance Documents for State and Local Pipeline Oversight and Response 56.00 66.50 24.34 8 8 9 6.3.8.1 Chemical-Based Risk Assessment Model 55.00 62.50 22.20 9 11 13 6.3.3.1 Distribution Facility Risk Assessment 54.00 61.50 21.80 10 14 14 6.3.8.4 Changes in Public Perception of Risk in Hazmat 53.00 63.50 23.03 11 9 10 6.3.2.4 Systematic Approach for the Development and Use of Hazmat Commodity Flow Data in Emergency Response Planning 52.50 63.00 22.82 12 10 11 6.3.4.2 Assessing the Impact of Global Warming on Hazmat Commodity Flow 52.00 62.50 22.60 13 11 12 6.3.9.1 Effects of Multiple Regulatory Schemes on Pipeline Operations 50.00 60.50 21.73 14 15 15 6.3.7.2 Commercial Explosives Testing 49.00 62.50 24.50 15 11 8 6.3.8.3 Comparative Hazmat Risk Assessment across Modes 49.00 56.50 19.78 15 19 19 6.3.2.5 Improved Hazmat Placarding Technologies 48.00 58.50 20.86 17 17 17 6.3.6.1 Impact of Hazmat Transportation Research on Public Policy 47.50 58.00 20.64 18 18 18 6.3.8.2 Measuring the Potential Benefit of Hazmat Risk Mitigation Strategies 47.00 59.00 21.60 19 16 16 6.3.7.3 Risk-Based Analysis of High-Strength Pipeline Steel 44.50 55.00 19.34 20 20 21 6.3.5.2 Estimating the Costs of Hazmat Incidents 43.00 55.00 19.76 21 20 20 6.3.2.3 Rural Hazmat Emergency Response 42.50 53.00 18.47 22 22 22
