 |
 |
> > i would suggest that the cost-effectiveness of highway research programs > tends to be low for the same reason as typical engineering projects. > usually the focus is on the project itself, and how well the engineering > works, rather than on the final purpose of the project. > > what i mean by final purpose is the basic underlying set of goals for > virtually all engineering activity, to improve the physical living > standards of human beings. there are 5 key essentials to assure > adequate living standards - clean air, clean water, healthy food, warm > clothes and snug shelter. Nb: Excuse the somewhat practical reply, I have ALSO contacted the original poster suggesting a SHRP overview of world road research activities might exist and to get in touch with FERL [Steve Phil(l)ips] in Europe for our slant on life. But I have hugged the odd tree in the past and do have concerns for the true practical results of research in a 'one-hand-clapping' sort of stylee.... Sp here's me spending most of my time since 1987 working on projects designed to stop the road surface becoming slipperier than expected leading to less people falling off the road inconveniently, or working on projects to assist in the design of highways that don't collapse prematurely..... quantify those using these parameters? I suppose ultimately not disappearing down a sinkhole on your trip to secure one of the above essentials* or not unexpectedly sliding off into the verge on the way back from the trip means my work is related to these, thus your comment is fair. But sadly I can't design in the performance indicators of my handiwork to include 'quality of life'%% %% unless via road accident records the reduced probabilty of entire loss of it can be estimated? So in terms of value for money of research ask ourselves .... 'what practical use was that research i did back in 19(67/87/97)?' .......and as a past (T)RL(L) employee I take the development of the '1988 Trunk Road Skidding Standard' (not anything to do with me) as my benchmark and any other projects worldwide that can be SEEN to have had a tangeable result ( from statistics) following their application. NB: Developing ejector seats would have be a good one to have worked on to prove how your work improved the life of pilots (unless pilots THEN flew harder knowing they would survive the more dodgy reverse Immelmann turns they were scard to try out before) BUT research will inherently have (and needs to have) some ....."what the hell did that prove?" content, but after all, 'inconclusive' often means you used the wrong gauges ;) Sadly the ideal end point of 'improved quality of life' is difficult to measure in my roadstone related research but hey! a flower in my hair and a new mindset might contrast well with the lab coat covered in bitumen and the 2.5 Ghz 333 DDR-Ram 1GB database mentality. Sadly my area of work does not involve trying to limit the number of people suffocating on the way to work (quality of life?) ... BUT what do YOU use MOST to prove your efforts are not in vain? questionnaires (aka Quality of Life Meters) or air samplers? Research has to be driven initially by 'real' performance indicators BUT true if a resurface of the M27 with a quiet negative textured thin surfacing subsequently..... gets a 'nine' in the ten tick boxes of the clipboard survey of the locals: Q: 'how noisy do you think the road is on a scale of 10: 'Bomber' by Motorhead to 1: 'Les Trois Gymnopedies' by Eric Satie' ? [after throwing $37k of noise meters & drive-by-tests etc etc at the stuff in the lab to SHOW it WAS REALLY quieter before you dared lay it]....... .... we will all sleep well in our beds NOW knowing we did a good job those weks and months 'down the lab'! John C Bullas Southampton UK ..... but based in Smoggy Christchurch NZ for a while for the quality of life other than the morning visibility ..... quantify that :) http://www.soton.ac.uk/~johnb/ ________________________________________________ Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2