APPENDIX A
Background on the U.S. Highway System

The U.S. highway system is owned, operated, and maintained by public-sector agencies that contract with private construction companies for most highway construction and some highway maintenance. The system is financed by federal, state, and local taxes. Private individuals and companies own and operate automobiles, buses, and trucks that use the system and make decisions about where, when, and how they travel. The public sector is also a major highway user and makes travel choices for military mobilization, school transportation, public safety, and the like. The highway system and the public–private highway industry that supports it stem from a federal–state intergovernmental partnership established early in the 20th century. This partnership and its fundamental principles have served the system and nation well. Although these principles are a consequence of history, they can change as a matter of public policy.

This appendix presents information about the origins and current characteristics of the nation’s highway system. It also describes the industry components— public and private—that own, construct, operate, and maintain highways. The



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 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology APPENDIX A Background on the U.S. Highway System The U.S. highway system is owned, operated, and maintained by public-sector agencies that contract with private construction companies for most highway construction and some highway maintenance. The system is financed by federal, state, and local taxes. Private individuals and companies own and operate automobiles, buses, and trucks that use the system and make decisions about where, when, and how they travel. The public sector is also a major highway user and makes travel choices for military mobilization, school transportation, public safety, and the like. The highway system and the public–private highway industry that supports it stem from a federal–state intergovernmental partnership established early in the 20th century. This partnership and its fundamental principles have served the system and nation well. Although these principles are a consequence of history, they can change as a matter of public policy. This appendix presents information about the origins and current characteristics of the nation’s highway system. It also describes the industry components— public and private—that own, construct, operate, and maintain highways. The

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology significance of highway transportation to the nation’s economy, its energy and environmental consequences, and its role in defense mobilization are then addressed. ORIGINS AND CURRENT CHARACTERSTICS During the 19th century, organized road building was essentially a state-initiated activity to meet the needs of postal delivery and to join farms to markets. Although interest in highways grew during the latter half of the century, highway development was overshadowed by railroad expansion (Rae 1971). The popularity of bicycles, stimulated by the speed and mobility of the safety bicycle—a design with wheels of equal size and pneumatic tires—led to late-19th-century efforts aimed at improving roads. Groups such as the League of American Wheelmen,1 founded in 1880, and bicycle manufacturers, who by 1890 were producing more than a million bicycles each year, began urging state legislatures to provide better roads (Weingroff 1993).2 The National League for Good Roads was founded in 1892 and convened a Good Roads Convention in Washington, D.C., the following year. In 1893 Congress established the Office of Road Inquiry (ORI) in the Department of Agriculture to assist states and localities in their road-building activities. ORI focused on gathering information on highway laws, suitable road-building materials, and rail rates for hauling such materials. ORI’s instructions from the Secretary of Agriculture, reflecting contemporary political sentiment, emphasized that “the actual expense in the construction of highways is to be borne by the localities and states in which they lie.” The appearance of motor vehicles at the turn of the century added to the pressure for road building that continued to grow in the early 20th century. In 1913 Congress passed the landmark Federal Aid Road Act and appropriated $75 million over a 5-year period for the improvement of rural post roads. The funds were to be spent through state highway departments, a provision that required states without highway departments to create them. Funds were provided on a 50-50 matching basis, not exceeding $10,000 per mile, for projects approved by the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR), the successor to ORI that later became the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The legislation put Congress on record as recognizing that better roads were essential to the national welfare and a national as well as a local responsibility. 1 Now the League of American Bicyclists. 2 Many manufacturers of buggies and bicycles were also involved in the manufacture of early motor vehicles.

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology Initially, federal and state highway programs were financed from general revenues. The states were first to adopt user taxes for highways; as early as 1916, such taxes made up about $26 million of the $87 million in state highway spending. In 1932 the federal government followed the states by imposing a tax on gasoline fuels, and although the revenue thus collected was not formally earmarked for highway programs until 1956, federal spending and gasoline tax revenues tracked closely in the intervening years. After the Highway Trust Fund was established in 1956, user financing became a basic principle of the federal-aid highway program. U.S. mobilization for World War I underscored the need for the nation to develop a systematic network of trunk highways instead of pursuing piecemeal improvement of local roads. The Federal Highway Act of 1921 recognized this need by requiring federal highway aid to be concentrated on “such projects as will expedite the completion of an adequate and connected system of highways, interstate in character.” Each state was required to designate 7 percent of its road mileage as primary, and this mileage alone was eligible for federal-aid matching funds. This legislation marked the beginning of a genuine national highway system. The 1913 and 1921 acts formed the basis for a national, federally assisted state highway program with state and local ownership and responsibility for planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining highways. The federal role was established as one of financial assistance to ensure a high-quality, uniform system across the states and technical assistance to promote innovation in the highway industry.3 The result is a system of essentially free highways whose variations are nearly transparent to highway users because of the high degree of system uniformity regardless of state ownership. Such uniformity stems from programmatic efforts by BPR and FHWA, as well as the assistance and cooperation of state and local highway agencies. Federal highway funding is based on legislated formulas with factors intended to balance national and state needs, another important characteristic that follows from the way the system is organized. The priorities of the federal-aid highway program follow a functional classification of highways—rural Interstate highways, principal rural arterials, local rural highways, urban Interstates, local urban collectors, and others—that reflects differences in highway and pavement design. 3 The federal role in highway transportation does not involve ownership of any part of the public road system outside federal property.

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology Between 1921 and 1956, federal highway legislation continued to provide funds to the states for highway construction. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 changed some of the fundamental aspects of this assistance by creating a new class of highways and a new funding mechanism. The act laid out a new network of express highways (expressways) that would connect the major cities in the United States, reflecting proposals originating in the early 1930s. The 41,000-mile network now known as the Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways was to be toll free, although provision was made for incorporating about 2,300 miles of toll roads in the system. A new financing mechanism, the Highway Trust Fund, was established, based on receipts from federal user taxes on motor fuels, tires and tubes, new buses, and trucks and trailers and a use tax on heavy trucks. Through the Highway Trust Fund, the federal government contributed 90 percent of the highway construction costs for the new Interstate system. The Interstate highway system provided a truly national system of highways that supported the growth of the nation’s economy by reducing vehicle operating costs and travel time for motor vehicle passengers and freight. The controlled-access, grade-separated, divided highways of the Interstate system became the standard for other highway construction as well. The system, in conjunction with other factors such as a thriving economy, a growing population, cheap land, and the home mortgage tax deduction, had a profound impact on the way communities grew and expanded. The Interstate highway program has not been without its problems. Early in the program there were allegations of waste and mismanagement, but BPR acted quickly and decisively to standardize contracting procedures and undertook contract audits and investigations. Construction costs climbed past initial and revised estimates, and user fees were raised to ensure that the Highway Trust Fund would meet the obligations posed by the system. Planners and critics citing potential adverse environmental impacts and community disruption urged suspension of all urban Interstate construction until the full impact of the system could be identified. Such criticisms led to the requirement in the 1962 Federal-Aid Highway Act that metropolitan areas with populations of more than 50,000 implement a formal transportation planning process that was continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive. This was followed by a provision in the 1973 Federal-Aid Highway Act that authorized withdrawal of controversial Interstate segments and substitution of urban mass transportation projects. Today’s concerns about urban air pollution and traffic congestion are linked to commuting patterns that resulted in part from urban Interstate construction.

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology Extent of the U.S. Highway System The U.S. highway system is the nation’s largest public infrastructure system, consisting of almost 3.9 million miles of roadways (79 percent of which is in rural areas), 583,000 bridges and other related structures, and a wide range of traffic control and safety systems and equipment. All public roads and streets in the United States are functionally classified by type and use. There are three key functional subsystems—arterials (including Interstates), collectors, and local roads—broadly defined on the basis of the traffic they serve (statewide or Interstate, metropolitan or local). These subsystems are further subdivided into rural and urban. In 1995, legislation designated about 159,000 miles of roadways (98 percent of which has already been built) as the National Highway System (NHS). This network serves major population centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation facilities, and other key transportation facilities; meets national defense requirements; and serves interstate and interregional travel. Although representing only about 4 percent of the nation’s highways, the NHS carries more than 40 percent of all highway traffic, 75 percent of heavy-truck traffic, and 90 percent of tourist traffic. It forms the basis for the majority of current federal aid for highways. The NHS legislation was designed to focus attention on and provide additional federal resources for the nation’s most important roads. U.S. highways represent an asset value estimated at greater than $1,300 billion, more than 87 percent of the nation’s infrastructure assets. The United States spends about $117 billion annually on highway transportation infrastructure—more than two-thirds of the nation’s total spending on transportation infrastructure (Buechner 1999). Federal Legislation and Government Roles in Highway Transportation By creating a new class of highways and a new highway funding mechanism, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 significantly affected the governmental roles in highway transportation. Subsequent legislation continues to refine these roles. States have always viewed the Highway Trust Fund as state money collected by the federal government for distribution back to the states. The distribution formulas set by Congress redistribute trust fund contributions to address national highway goals, with the result that some states receive more trust fund dollars than they contribute, while others receive less. Congress occasionally changes the distribution formulas and has considered proposals to eliminate

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology federal highway taxes, leaving the states responsible for generating needed highway funds directly. Following debate on this issue for the 1998 highway reauthorization bill, Congress decided to continue the Highway Trust Fund and added the requirement that each state must receive at least 90.5 percent of its contribution. Other highway legislation has affected the federal-state relationship. Between 1966 and 1970, several new laws were passed addressing vehicle standards, traffic operations, and highway design, firmly establishing a federal interest in highway safety. In 1966 the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Highway Safety Act authorized the first federal motor vehicle and highway safety regulations. Although the initial regulations were aimed at vehicle crash-worthiness and crash avoidance, they were followed by a new emphasis on driver-, vehicle-, and highway-related safety research, as well as by regulations based on research and science that affected several aspects of highway management and operation. FHWA has sole responsibility for three highway-related safety areas—identification and surveillance of crash locations; highway design, construction, and maintenance; and traffic engineering—and shares responsibility for a fourth—pedestrian safety—with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In 1970 Congress broadened the federal-aid highway program to cover several highway maintenance categories and created a program of federal aid for bridge rehabilitation. In 1976 federal funds were made available for restoration, resurfacing, and rehabilitation on federal-aid highways, called the 3R program. These changes were made in response to the growing maintenance needs of the Interstate system and state concerns about the costs involved.4 Although the changes shifted the financial burden of such projects, they also altered the responsibilities of the federal government and the states and extended federal control of the trust fund revenues. This expansion of the federal role was paid for in part by reducing spending on construction elements of the federal program. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA) added reconstruction (a fourth R) to the 3R program. It also responded to growing concerns about motor carrier safety and the compatibility of large trucks with the nation’s highway system by expanding the federal role in regulating the size of commercial motor vehicles. Federal law now establishes truck size and weight limits on a 4 Congress changed the distinction between construction and maintenance by amending the U.S. Code to include resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation within the definition of construction as the term was used in the federal-aid highway program (TRB 1987).

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology federally designated, 190,000-mile network of major roads, and affects where certain large motor carriers can operate off this network of highways designed to safely accommodate the larger vehicles permitted under STAA. The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 reauthorized the federal-aid highway program in much the same form as it had taken throughout the 1980s; the act also extended authorization for completing the Interstate highway system through 1993. Federal spending for operations and maintenance covering research, safety, and 4R activities now represents just over 40 percent of all federal highway aid. Moreover, the federal interest in operational issues was extended further through new federal priorities favoring projects that incorporate safety-effective design features and through federal studies of operations and maintenance problems (FHWA 1988). Congress has further revised the federal role in highway transportation by passing (then repealing) a national speed limit; passing (then repealing) a motorcycle helmet law; and requiring states to pass legislation that mandates seat belt use, sets the minimum drinking age at 21, and establishes zero tolerance for underage drinking and driving violations. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century requires states to set new impaired-driving requirements regarding possession or consumption of alcohol in open containers in a motor vehicle, as well as repeat offenses against drinking and driving laws. Although the states are free to enact their own legislation, failure to do so results in redirection of a portion of their federal-aid highway construction funds to highway safety programs. Mandating such regulations often creates tension between the federal government and the states and affects the relationships between FHWA and state highway agencies, especially if the mandates are unfunded or federal aid to the states is affected. Other federal mandates address highway program administration. They include provisions that impose federal guidelines on wages paid on federal-aid projects and direct that a portion of federal funds be set aside for contracting with minority, disadvantaged, and woman-owned business enterprises. Role of the Federal Highway Administration FHWA is the mission agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) responsible for the federal-aid highway system and for the development of regulations, policies, and guidelines for achieving national highway goals through its programs. FHWA dispersed about $26 billion in 1999 to the states, primarily from the Highway Trust Fund. Specifically, FHWA’s mission is to “provide the best highway system in the world by continually improving the

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology quality of the system and its intermodal connections” and “in cooperation with all [its] partners to enhance the country’s economic vitality, quality of life, and the environment.” To this end, the agency’s strategic goals focus on safety, mobility, productivity, the human and natural environment, and national security (see Table A-1). State and Local Roles State and local governments are responsible for owning, constructing, operating, and maintaining the highway system. Each of the 50 states, plus Washington, D.C., and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, has an independent highway agency. These agencies are responsible for the segments of the federal Interstate Table A-1 Strategic Goals of the Federal Highway Administration Strategic Goal Description Mobility Ensure improved access to and increased mobility on the highway system (this can include redistributing resources among states or regions to ensure a minimum national standard of highway service). Safety Provide a safer highway transportation system (all levels of government have a responsibility to ensure that highways are constructed, operated, and maintained in a safe and rational manner). Productivity Foster economic growth and productivity through efficient and effective performance and regulation of the highway system. Human and natural environment Promote the protection and enhancement of the human and natural environment within the highway program. National security Provide a primary national highway network with uniform minimum standards for military and emergency movements (national defense preparedness is and will remain an important national priority). SOURCES: DOT and FHWA publications.

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology highway and primary highway systems that lie within their borders, as well as their own networks of state highways. The states own more than 20 percent of the nation’s highways. An average state owns 23.7 percent of the highways within its borders, with state ownership ranging from 8.5 percent in North Dakota to 91.5 percent in West Virginia. In 1999 the states provided $62 billion for highway-related purposes through a range of means, including vehicle and driver licensing fees and fuel taxes. States also provide direct assistance to local governments by performing construction and maintenance on locally owned roads and by distributing state revenues to local governments as grants for highway purposes. At the local level, the nation’s more than 2,800 counties collectively own and manage about 1.7 million miles of highway (an average of about 600 miles each), or 44 percent of all highways. More than 35,000 municipalities, towns, and townships own and manage nearly 25 percent of the nation’s highways. Localities spent about $30 billion on highways in 1999. Highway Industry Characteristics From the very beginning, the organization of highway agencies in states, counties, and municipalities made highway building a local enterprise. This enterprise spawned a large number of highway contractors and construction companies that serve local markets, as well as a few that extend outside state boundaries. Further affecting the limited market reach of much of the highway industry are the large quantities of low-cost materials used in highway building; such materials are costly if transported long distances. Moreover, state statutes have historically made it difficult to spend state funds outside the state, a benefit for local highway builders and suppliers of materials. Although some of these restrictions and limitations have been relaxed over time, both the highway system and the industry that serves it remain highly decentralized and fragmented. Much of the construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation of the highway system is performed or supported by a highly diversified industry consisting of thousands of engineering firms, commodity suppliers, construction companies, contractors, and equipment manufacturers and suppliers. The companies vary in size, but many have fewer than 20 employees, although industry consolidation is changing this situation. More than 80 percent of the companies work only in a single state, and the majority derive all their income from in-state projects.

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF HIGHWAY TRANSPORTAION The following statement summarizes how transportation affects the economy. Transportation is an indispensable component of any economy and society. It can increase the value of goods by moving them to locations where they are worth more. It allows people to commute to places of employment where their time has value. By extending the spatial boundaries of commodity and labor markets, transportation encourages competition and production; transportation stimulates demand for various goods and services, thereby contributing to U.S. economic growth. To meet this demand, the transportation sector employs millions of workers. (BTS 1997) Within the nation’s transportation system, highways account for 2.7 trillion vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) annually; this figure encompasses all motor vehicles, including heavy-duty trucks (FHWA 1999). Growth in VMT was about 13 percent between 1990 and 1995, or 2.5 percent per year, and is not diminishing. Outlays for passenger transportation in the United States in 1997 were $833 billion, 4 percent more than in 1996. Automobile transportation outlays dominated at about $688 billion, or 82.5 percent of the total. More than $504 billion was spent in 1997 for freight transportation in the United States, an increase of about 8 percent over 1996. Expenditures for truck freight in 1997 amounted to $402 billion, 79 percent of the total freight transportation market. Small-package delivery revenues for for-hire trucking rose 96 percent in a decade to $15.7 billion in 1997. Business outlays for highway transportation–related equipment (trucks, trailers, buses, and automobiles) rose to $125.6 billion in 1997, representing 20 percent of all business expenditures for nonresidential durable equipment of all types. The highway system supports the nation’s economy and highly mobile lifestyle. By enabling a wide range of travel options for personal and business travel, the system affects how the nation conducts its business and its citizens carry out their daily lives. As a result, human activities and highway transportation are closely connected. The commute to work—a complex interaction of travel demand, land use patterns, job and work locations, and individual travel decision making (Pisarsky 1987)—illustrates the contribution of highways to the economy, as well as some of the problems of highway dependency. The 1970s and 1980s witnessed a substantial surge in commute-to-work travel, predominantly by automobile, as a result of increases in the number of jobs, women in the workforce, and total worker population. In addition, during

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology the 1980s, the increase in the number of drivers (22 million) was greater than that in the number of people (19 million). Geographic patterns in the work commute continue to change, with suburban locations now being the primary destinations of work trips, and cross-suburb commuting increasing at an even greater pace than suburban commuting in general. All these changes put considerable pressure on a highway system that was planned and constructed when the work commute was primarily from suburb to central city and that has not seen an appreciable increase in mileage in the past two decades. Meanwhile, growth in highway use for other categories of passenger and freight travel also continues, even though it is not as well documented as growth in the work commute. Truck traffic has changed considerably in the past two decades, especially since deregulation of the trucking industry in 1979. Factors such as global competition, e-commerce,5 and worldwide component sourcing in all types of manufacturing have increased the demand to move product components and products more quickly on highways. Although truck trip data are scarce, evidence of overall growth in truck traffic is provided by several sources. The number of large trucks (Class 8) nearly doubled from 1982 to 1997. In addition, revenues of all intercity commercial carriers increased considerably between 1986 and 1996. For example, revenues for United Parcel Service shipments more than doubled, from $7.4 billion to greater than $16 billion during the period. Domestic air freight, which often includes truck pickup and delivery trips, increased more than threefold, from $3.5 billion to $11.3 billion. Among all truck trips, 81 percent are less than 50 miles in length, but they represent 66 percent of revenues carried. Concurrently, there is evidence that in response to increasing congestion in urban areas and on certain urban bypass and intercity routes, some businesses have relocated to avoid exposure to uncertain or continuing highway congestion delays.6 The significant public-sector investment in highways also leverages substantial investments by road users.7 The largest portion of personal assets held by the American public other than their homes is the vehicle fleet. This fleet includes 130 million automobiles, 76 million trucks, 3.8 million motorcycles, and about 0.7 million buses. In 1996, Americans spent more than $225 million on new automobiles and trucks. 5 E-commerce is defined as “any transaction completed over a computer-mediated network that involves the transfer of ownership or rights to use goods and services” (Fraumeni 2001). 6 Personal communication with Paul Roberts, consultant, January 2000. 7 Of the total adult population, 88 percent is licensed to drive.

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology Table C-3 Group C: Nine Congressionally Designated Centers Location Theme Morgan State University Transportation safety and efficiency through management, research, and development New Jersey Institute of Technology Productivity improvements through transportation North Carolina A&T State University Urban transit North Carolina State University Transportation and environment San Jose State University Surface transportation policy studies University of Alabama Management and safety of transportation systems University of Arkansas Rural transportation University of Idaho Advanced transportation technology University of South Florida Urban transportation NOTE: Each received $750,000 per year between 1998 and 2001; limited competition with Group B centers for fifth and sixth years.

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology Table C-4 Group D: Six Congressionally Designated Centers Location Theme George Mason University (with University of Virginia and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) Intelligent transportation systems Marshall University Economic growth and productivity in rural Appalachia through transportation Montana State University, Bozeman Rural transportation Northwestern University Infrastructure technology University of Minnesota Intelligent transportation systems University of Rhode Island Advanced transportation infrastructure and systems NOTE: Each receives $2 million per year from 1998 to 2003.

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology Part 2: Programs Designated in TEA-21 and Funded from Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Research Program Funds Funding is on an 80:20, federal-to-other matching basis; federal funds are subject to an obligation limitation ceiling (approximately 12 percent reduction in Fiscal Year 2000). Table C-5 Programs Funded Through FHWA Surface Transportation Research Program Program Location (Federal Funds) Term Seismic Research University of California, San Diego ($4 million) 1999–2002 Global Climate Research University of Alabama at Huntsville ($1 million) 1999–2003 Asphalt Pavement Research Auburn University ($0.5 million) 1999–2000 Seismic Research Program National Center for Earthquake Engineering at State University of New York—Buffalo ($12 million) 1998–2003 Fundamental Properties of Asphalt and Modified Asphalt Western Research Institute at University of Wyoming ($16 million) 1998–2003 Intelligent Infrastructure Research Drexel University ($10 million) 1999–2003 Recycled Materials Research Center University of New Hampshire ($9 million per year) 1998–2003 Intermodal Transportation Simulation System and National Center for Aviation and Transportation Dowling College ($2 million) and Auburn University (minimum of $0.5 million in Fiscal Year 2000) Fiscal Year 2000   (Total: $136.5 million)a   a Includes $94 million to other designated programs for undesignated recipients during the term of 1998 to 2003.

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology Part 3: Programs Designated in TEA-21 and Funded from FHWA Technology Deployment Initiatives and Partnerships Program Funding is on an 80:20 federal-to-other matching basis; federal funds are subject to an obligation limitation ceiling (approximately 12 percent reduction in Fiscal Year 2000). Table C-6 Programs Funded Through FHWA Technology Deployment Initiatives and Partnerships Program Program Location (Federal Funds) Term Advanced Vehicle Research University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa ($2 million) 1999–2003 Geothermal Heat Pump Smart Bridge Research Oklahoma State University ($3.5 million) 1999–2002 Intelligent Stiffener for Bridge Stress Reduction University of Oklahoma ($2.5 million) 1999–2001 Advanced Trauma Care University of Alabama at Birmingham ($3.75 million) 1999–2003 Center for Transportation Injury Research Calspan of Buffalo Research Center ($12 million) 1998–2003 Head and Spinal Cord Injury Research Louisiana State University ($1 million) and George Washington University ($1.5 million) 1999–2003 Motor Vehicle Safety Warning System Georgia Technical Institute Research Center ($2.1 million) 1998–2000 Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure State of Pennsylvania ($10.2 million) 1998–2003 Advanced Traffic Monitoring and Response Center Pennsylvania Transportation Institute with Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission ($10 million) 1998–2003 Transportation Economics and Land Use New Jersey Institute of Technology ($6 million) 1998–2003

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology Part 4: Designated Programs (Recipients) in Fiscal Year 2000 Highway Appropriations Funded at 50 Percent of Conference Earmark Table C-7 Programs Funded at 50 Percent of Conference Earmark in FY 2000 Program Location Funding Geosynthetic Materials Montana State University $200,000 Polymer Binders South Carolina State University and Clemson University $625,000 Advanced Engineering/ Wood Composites San Diego State University and University of Maine $600,000 Center for Excellence for Structures and Pavements West Virginia University $1,000,000 Native Vegetation Center University of Northern Iowa $150,000 National Environmental Respiratory Center University of New Mexico $25,000

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology APPENDIX D International Highway Research and Development Activities There is considerable variation among countries in highway research activities and funding. Little published information exists on funding for these activities, which comes from many different government sources. Moreover, many countries have separate organizational and funding arrangements for highway infrastructure and highway safety. In addition to national highway research and development programs, European and other member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) participate in a range of international cooperative research activities. The OECD Road Transport Research (RTR) Program was established in 1967 to improve the performance and reduce the costs associated with highway transportation in member countries (OECD 1997). The program uses expert working groups to review the state of the art and state of practice in member countries, identify research gaps, and make suggestions for technical and policy improvements on topics of common interest. Several research projects have been undertaken under the direction of

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology special committees using separate earmarked grants. The RTR program also manages two databases for technology transfer and information exchange—the International Road Research Documentation and the International Road Traffic and Accident databases. The Cooperation on Science and Technology (COST) Program is a voluntary, nationally funded cooperative research program aimed at coordinating national research projects across (mostly) European countries. COST actions (projects) are generally concerned with precompetitive scientific and technical research addressing specific objectives of interest to participating countries. In most cases, COST actions are used to coordinate existing or proposed national research. COST has no specified research program structure or set of priorities. A key characteristic of the COST concept is freedom of participation for each country; a commitment to participate by at least five countries is required to initiate a COST action. The Research and Technological Development (RTD) Program of the European Commission addresses high-level, Europe-wide objectives that cannot be attained at a national level. Such research makes use of the broad range of skills within the European Community and spreads the costs and risks involved. The current program, termed the Fifth Framework for Research and Technological Development, has a budget of about $14.6 billion for a wide range of scientific and technical activities during the period 1998 to 2002. Current thematic initiatives address transportation-related projects: competitive and sustainable growth; sustainable mobility and intermodality; land and marine transport; aeronautics; and research in materials, production technology, standards, and technology. The RTD program includes a transportation research component and a road transport research program with the following themes: sustainable mobility; road safety; traffic, transport, and information management; and road infrastructure design and maintenance. The budget for this portion of the program is about $30 million (Cordis 2000). The European Research Coordination Agency (EUREKA) initiative was launched in 1985 to enhance European competitiveness in high-technology fields. Since then the 20-plus member nations have allocated up to $10 billion annually to a wide range of projects, including some addressing transportation issues. EUREKA currently funds 44 transport projects on such topics as alternative fuels, intelligent transportation systems, advanced materials, and material recycling at a total funding level of about $200 million (EUREKA 2000).

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology REFERENCES Abbreviations EUREKA European Research Coordination Agency OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Cordis. 2000. www.cordis/lu/fp5/home.html. EUREKA. 2000. www.eureka.belsp.be (click on Project Portfolio, then click on Transport). OECD. 1997. Road Transport Research Outlook 2000. Paris.

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology APPENDIX E Worksheet for Estimating Percentage of Congressional Designations for the Federal Highway Administration’s Research and Technology Program Table E-1 Item 1: FHWA R&T Funding by Category as Authorized in TEA-21 ($ millions) Program Category 1999 2000 2001 Surface transportation R&T deployment 132.0 137.0 143.0 Intelligent transportation systems R&D 40.7 47.0 48.3 University Transportation Centers 25.65 27.275 27.25 Training and education 15.0 16.0 18.0 Total 213.35 227.775 236.35 NOTE: FHWA = Federal Highway Administration; R&T = research and technology; R&D = research and development; TEA-21 = Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology Table E-2 Item 2: Designated FHWA R&T Funding by Category as Authorized in TEA-21 ($ millions) Program Category 1999 2000 2001 Surface transportation R&T deployment 56.4 59.4 59.4 Intelligent transportation systems R&D 0.5 0.5 0.5 University Transportation Centers 15.65 17.275 17.25 Training and education 0 0 0 Total 72.55 77.175 77.15 Table E-3 Item 3: Additional Designated FHWA R&T Funding by Category: Specified in Annual Appropriations ($ millions) Program Category 1999 2000 2001 Surface transportation R&T deployment 21.6 19.1 39.6 Intelligent transportation systems R&D 0 0 5 University Transportation Centers 0 0 0 Training and education 0 0 0 Total 21.6 19.1 44.6 Table E-4 Item 4: Total Designated FHWA R&T Funding by Category, Authorized in TEA-21 and Specified in Annual Authorizations (Sum of Items 2 and 3; $ millions) Program Category 1999 2000 2001 Surface transportation R&T deployment 78.0 78.5 99.0 Intelligent transportation systems R&D 0.5 0.5 5.5 University Transportation Centers 15.65 17.275 17.25 Training and education 0 0 0 Total 94.15 96.275 121.75

OCR for page 103
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology Table E-5 Items 5-8: Estimating Percentage of Congressional Designations ($ millions) Item Description 1999 2000 2001 5 Obligation limit on FHWA R&T funding 0.883 0.871 0.879 6 Total FHWA R&T funding after obligation limit is applied 188.4 197.96 207.93 7 Total designated FHWA R&T funding after the obligation limit is applieda 83.13 83.86 107.02 8 Percentage of FHWA R&T funding subject to congressional designationsb 44.0 42.0 51.0 a By category, authorized in TEA-21 and specified in annual authorizations. b For specific research projects or research performers (based on Item 7 totals divided by Item 6 totals).