Approaches Sample Clauses

Approaches. Quality of safety programs is ensured by CDOT through evaluation of safety cost effectiveness and/or value derived from the safety programs and projects and assessment of progress on key safety performance measures, as reported in the Annual HSIP reports. The continuous quality improvements process of the Traffic and Safety Engineering Branch and Problem Identification conducted by HSO are used to prioritize limited funds to determine which initiatives have the greatest impact on highway safety in the areas of engineering and human factors (behavior). The quality is enhanced through collaboration with others to include FHWA, which provides technical assistance for the HSIP and individual projects. Quality is monitored through ongoing operations and the regional and project oversight that consists of work zone traffic control reviews, process reviews, scoping reviews, and Quality Assurance Reviews. In conducting safety analysis, CDOT analyzes crash data using the latest and proven methodologies that are consistent with the HSM as well as current research. CDOT screens for locations that have a comparatively high concentration of crashes and correctable crash patterns, which are then categorized as locations with high potential for crash reduction. Through routine safety assessments, HSIP planning, or other statewide safety program planning, CDOT analyzes these locations and provides recommendations for mitigation that are both researched and proven (as documented in NCHRP Report 500 and in FHWA's Guide on the use of Proven Safety Countermeasures) in conjunction with other innovative strategies applied towards safety improvement. The processes of this program are documented in 23 CFR, along with CDOT procedural directives and policies, operational guidelines, etc. This information is shared with those who need to understand how the process operates. In addition, meetings are an integral and critical method of process and operational communications. Traffic Control Reviews: CDOT Area Engineers, with the support of Staff Traffic Engineers, Region Traffic Engineers, and FHWA Area Engineers will jointly conduct annual traffic control reviews to monitor traffic control on construction projects to ensure conformance with established regulations, policies, procedures, and guidelines. FHWA area engineers and the Division highway safety engineer will be invited to the region annual traffic control reviews.
Approaches. CDOT and FHWA plan program-wide implementation of Quality Control (QC) activities. CDOT Design Program Manager, CDOT Area Engineers, FHWA Area Engineers, and the regions will cooperate to ensure that effective QC procedures are established and carried out for design and construction activities. Following are some of the cooperative QC activities: ● Post Construction Reviews: Post Construction reviews will be conducted in all of the regions each year. The Construction Area Engineers assists the regions in coordinating their post-construction reviews. FHWA Area Engineers will be invited to attend reviews on oversight projects. ● Inter-Region Reviews: Inter-Region reviews will be conducted in half of the regions each year. The Area Engineers assist the regions in coordinating their Inter-Region reviews. The respective FHWA Area Engineer will be invited to attend the reviews.
Approaches. The SHE makes the Drainage Design Manual available to the public through CDOT’s web page. The Staff Hydraulics makes the Drainage Design Manual available to the public through CDOT’s web page. The RHE will have their project drainage designs and reports reviewed independently; either by a consultant or other outside source. FHWA and the SHE can request a hydraulic report from the region for their review at their discretion. FHWA and the SHE will meet annually and make recommendations to the QIC for future related QA's involving hydraulics. The SHE will organize and conduct an annual meeting with all Region Hydraulic Engineers and meet on an as-needed basis with Region Hydraulic Engineers to discuss projects, issues and concerns.
Approaches. Staff Bridge provides and maintains several documents that are available to the public through CDOT’s web page. The publications available include the: Colorado Bridge Element Coding Guide, Colorado Structure Inventory Coding Guide, Colorado Tunnel Inventory and Inspection Manual, CDOT Bridge Design Manual, CDOT Bridge Detailing Manual, CDOT Bridge Rating Manual, CDOT Bridge Worksheets, and structures-related construction specifications. The NBI and NTI data for all bridges and tunnels, respectively, is routinely reviewed for accuracy by Staff Bridge’s quality assurance bridge inspector. Annually, FHWA and members of Staff Bridge’s bridge inspection and asset management units will review at least twenty bridges and four tunnels, including local structures, for accuracy of NBI and NTI data. FHWA will review inspection procedures and compliance of the NBIS and the NTIS in accordance with FHWA defined metrics. FHWA will report deficiencies to the Staff Bridge Engineer. The metric report will be completed by the end of the calendar year. CDOT will have until February 28 to respond to the deficiencies reported. The DBE will finalize the report by March 31 to FHWA HQ. Staff Bridge provides quality control for the NBI and NTI submittals to FHWA headquarters by checking the data and making any corrections before submitting the data to FHWA. The quality control includes running FHWA’s checking software utility. The annual bridge construction costs are submitted by Staff Bridge to FHWA Division Bridge Engineer for review. FHWA will check costs for at least four bridges. Also, with this submittal, FHWA will review unusual bids or award bids that are 15% over the Engineer’s cost estimate. Unusual bids or line items with significant cost increases will be reported to the Staff Bridge Engineer by FHWA.
Approaches. ZAU may disregard notification when ZAU TMU is advised by C90 that PRM approaches are not in use.
Approaches. For PANACEA it was decided that the majority of SCF acquisition would focus on “inductive classifiers” as exemplified by (Messiant, 2008). Such classifiers are relatively domain- independent because they take parsed data as input and learn SCFs based on observed verbal argument patterns, without any preconceived inventory of SCFs. They are also lightweight and suitable for large scale web service provision. The goal here was not necessarily to improve on state-of-the-art accuracy, but to make the tools available in a lexical acquisition platform. Two different inductive classifiers have been developed, using slightly different methods for deciding on the features to be included in the SCFs. The initial versions of these inductive classifiers were developed and tested on two different languages, Italian and English, respectively, but the newest versions implemented generalized, language- and tagset- independent SCF classifiers that can use the native tagset of the parser output to learn SCFs. These classifiers adopt the same acquisition methodology as the language-specific ones, but rely on very general extraction rules, with a customizable interface. These classifiers have been deployed as web services and integrated in the PANACEA platform. Using these classifiers, SCF lexica for three languages (Italian, English, and Spanish) have been acquired. In addition to inductive classifiers, several other approaches have been pursued within PANACEA. The remainder of this section details different approaches to SCF acquisition which have been investigated in PANACEA. When web services have been deployed, they are described under each approach. A full summary table of web services is collected in Section 3. The major papers associated with each approach are summarized here. A full list of papers is collected in Section 2.7, and the papers themselves are available in Annex A.
Approaches. The contractors shall make arrangements for and provide at his own cost all temporary approaches, if required to the site(s) after obtaining approval in writing of the AGE (I) to the layout of such approaches.
Approaches. Numerous approaches are emerging in SynBio. Two of the main approaches are outlined below. The bottom up approach The bottom up approach involves piecing together small biological parts to create a more complex and bigger system. This includes the creation of a biological system from scratch. Synthetic chromosomes are produced by synthesising and assembling genes. In order for these methods to be successful, a deep understanding of biological processes is needed. SynBio is then directly linked to the study of biological systems that may lead to finding answers to questions such as how life could have emerged on Earth, and whether biological processes, and ultimately “life”, could be built in different ways (e.g. using different molecules or chemical processes). The top down approach In the top down approach, existing organisms are broken into parts and reduced to their simplest form that is still capable of survival and easy to manipulate. Biological features are then rearranged to endow these basic organisms with biological functions that they do not possess in their natural state. 4 Xxxxxx Rerimassie, Rathenau Institute and Xxxxxx Xxxxx, KIT, 2014, xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xx Illustration of the ‘Top down’ approach in SynBio in three steps Step 1 The genomes of many microorganisms have been analysed. A large number of gene sequences encoding proteins, also called bio-bricks, are involved in the implementation of selected functions. These bio-bricks and their functions are well known and can be used to construct in SynBio. Step 2 Synthetic biologists use an engineering approach to bring together selected bio-bricks. DNA can be chemically synthesised by a machine. The man-made DNA is then inserted into a host organism using recombinant DNA techniques.
Approaches. The Grantee will at the cost of the Grantee and to the entire satisfaction of KiwiRail, fence, form, metal, seal, reinstate and maintain the approaches to the right of way.
Approaches. All newly installed turnout approaches should be surfaced in accordance with this section no less than 100 track feet, unless approved by the Engineer.