National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5 Recommendations
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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

Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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.

Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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.

Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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.

Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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

Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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).

Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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

Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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.

Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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.

Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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

Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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.

Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

How the highway system performs also affects the nation’s economy. Road users gauge system performance primarily by the smoothness of roads and the extent of roads, congestion, and delays. A study of mobility and congestion in 68 urban areas led to the conclusion that overall congestion resulted in 4.3 billion hours of traveler delay, 6.6 billion gallons of wasted fuel, and $72 billion in lost time and fuel costs in 1997.8 However, from 1994 to 1997, of the total lane-miles needed to avoid further increases in the level of congestion, only 4 percent was added in the 68 urban areas (although other steps might have been taken).

Congestion and delay are not the only negative outcomes of highway transportation. In 2000 there were about 11 million vehicle crashes, more than 3 million injuries, and more than 42,000 deaths associated with highway transportation. Moreover, highway vehicles are the largest source of transportation-related emissions for nearly every type of air pollutant. In total, they contribute slightly more than one-third of nationwide emissions of the Environmental Protection Agency’s six criteria pollutants for measuring air quality (TRB 1995).

The benefits of public investment in highway infrastructure accrue to the private sector in the form of greater mobility, improved access, reduced travel time and trip length, and less wear and tear on vehicles. Trucking company executives confirm this when they condition support for increased user taxes on exclusive use of such revenues for highway improvements. Achieving future cost reductions or performance improvements through new technology will ultimately depend on investment in research and technology.

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

Motor vehicle transportation accounts for most of the energy consumed and pollutants emitted in U.S. transportation. If motor vehicle travel grows at even half the rate experienced during the past half-century, the amount of travel by motor vehicle on the nation’s highways will more than double before the middle of this century (TRB 1995). Urban air pollution is one of the nation’s most vexing environmental problems, a highly visible side effect of motor vehicle use that has become a public health concern for millions of Americans living in and around metropolitan areas. Many of its adverse consequences are known to the public, and it has become the subject of research, regulations, and combined public-private efforts to better understand and manage it.

The greatest immediate need of transportation policy makers and administrators is for environmental information and analysis in support of programs

8

Congestion as a measure compares travel time during peak periods with travel time during unrestricted flow conditions (TTI 2001).

Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

undertaken to comply with federal clean air regulations, although water quality, noise, and land use issues related to transportation are also of concern (TRB 1997a). Two long-term environmental issues associated with motor vehicle transportation are the risk of global climate change and the risk of losses in biological diversity and ecosystem functioning. The long-term buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted from fuels used in transportation, contributes to the risk of global climate change. Changes in air, water, and soil chemistry resulting from the chemicals emitted into the atmosphere by motor vehicles and from the gradual changes in habitats and natural processes caused by road systems and other transportation infrastructure affect the risk of losses in biological diversity and ecosystem functions (TRB 1997b).

Energy is important to highway transportation in several ways (Greene 1996). The current dependence of U.S. highway transportation on petroleum-based fuels is important because such fuels are the source of much U.S. air pollution, and continued dependency on foreign sources of petroleum can create strategic problems.9 Although alternative fuels are available for motor vehicles, they currently cost more than, and lack the supply infrastructure of, traditional gasoline and diesel fuels. Alternative fuels and alternative power sources could become more widely available if the price of petroleum-based fuels should rise.

Another issue related to energy and transportation fuels is the current dependence of highway financing on federal and state fuel taxes. Changes in motor vehicle use, motor vehicle fuels, and vehicle fuel efficiency have an impact on tax revenues.

THE HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND NATIONAL DEFENSE ISSUES

DOT and FHWA address national security through the strategic goal of “advancing the Nation’s vital security interests by ensuring that the transportation system is secure and available for defense mobility and that our borders are safe from illegal intrusion.” Recently both DOT and FHWA have recognized an increasing number of terrorist threats, the growing dependence of transportation on petroleum and information technology, and the need to ensure defense mobility. Information systems could prove highly vulnerable to attacks focused on the introduction of false information into the system or interference with computer and communication systems. As transportation systems become

9

The oil export boycott by Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in 1974 is the most dramatic example of such problems.

Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

increasingly integrated with information systems, the potential for widespread system disruption and personal injury as a result of such security breaches grows. There is a critical need to ensure that the nation’s transportation systems and infrastructure are capable of providing adequate defense mobility and sustaining military mobilizations.

REFERENCES

Abbreviations

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

TRB Transportation Research Board

TTI Texas Transportation Institute


BTS. 1997. Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1997. Washington, D.C.

Buechner, W. R. 1999. An Economic Analysis of the U.S. Transportation Construction Industry. Transportation Builder. July.

FHWA. 1988. America’s Challenge for Highway Transportation in the 21st Century: Interim Report of the Future National Highway Program Task Force. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., November.

FHWA. 1999. Highway Statistics. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Fraumeni, B. M. 2001. E-Commerce: Measurement and Measurement Issues. Presented at the Allied Social Science Association Meetings of the American Economics Association, New Orleans, La., January.

Greene, D. L. 1996. Transportation and Energy. Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Pisarsky, A. 1987. The Nation’s Public Works: Report on Highways, Streets, Roads and Bridges. National Council on Public Works Improvements, Washington, D.C., May.

Rae, J. 1971. The Road and the Car in American Life. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1971.

TRB. 1987. Special Report 214: Designing Safer Roads: Practices for Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

TRB. 1995. Special Report 245: Expanding Metropolitan Highways: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

TRB. 1997a. Clean Air and Highway Transportation: Mandates, Challenges, and Research Opportunities. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

TRB. 1997b. Special Report 251: Toward a Sustainable Future: Addressing the Long-Term Effects of Motor Vehicle Transportation on Climate and Ecology. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

TTI. 2001. 2001 Annual Mobility Report. Texas A&M University. www.mobility.tamu.edu.

Weingroff, R. F. 1993. The Federal Highway Administration at 100. Public Roads. Autumn.

Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

APPENDIX B
Agenda for Highway Research Prepared by the Working Groups of the National Highway Research and Technology Partnership Forum

Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

Table B-1 Safety Working Group

Theme

Emphasis Area

1. Safety management and data systems

  • Recommendations for implementing research and evaluation results

  • Case studies and guidelines for safety management practices and principles

  • Collection, management, and analysis of crash data

  • Crash causation research

2. Driver competency

  • Novice drivers

  • Countermeasures for managing inattention

  • Safe mobility for older drivers

  • Learning opportunities and resources to improve driver skills

3. High-risk driving

  • Impaired driving by targeted drivers (e.g., high blood-alcohol content)

  • Child and adult restraint system use

  • Automated enforcement equipment

  • Drivers without licenses or with revoked licenses

  • Aggressive driving

  • Understanding of risk-taking characteristics

4. Light-duty vehicle safety

  • Crash avoidance capabilities—vehicle handling and stability, braking and traction control, conspicuity, lighting, and signaling

  • Human-machine interface in light-duty vehicles

  • Restraint system designs and passenger compartment integrity

  • Vehicle compatibility

  • Biomechanics evaluation protocols and crash dummies

  • Driver fitness monitoring technology

  • Child safety

  • Performance of vehicles

5. Highway infrastructure and operations

  • Human factor safety guidelines

  • Consequences of leaving the road

  • Intersection safety

  • Intelligent infrastructure initiative

  • Work zones

  • Inclusion of safety in highway design process

Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

Theme

Emphasis Area

6. Vulnerable road users

  • Crash and use data regarding walking, bicycling, and motorcycling

  • Safer road sharing for pedestrians and bicyclists

  • Off-road facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists

  • Visibility and conspicuity

  • Educational materials

7. Heavy truck and bus safety

  • Truck and bus crashes and their precursors

  • Driver errors

  • Heavy-vehicle safety equipment and technologies

  • Enforcement of commercial motor carrier safety regulations

  • High-risk carriers and drivers

  • Commercial driver training and performance management

  • Driver alertness and fatigue management

  • Driver physical and medical fitness

  • Highway infrastructure and operations

8. Postcrash management

  • Emergency medical systems interventions for motor vehicle crash victims

  • Trauma system effectiveness

  • Interventions and technologies

  • Intelligent vehicle systems

  • Simulated patient training using emerging electronic technology

Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

Table B-2 Infrastructure Renewal Working Group (Asset Management)

Theme

Emphasis Areas

1. Information management

  • Data systems integration

  • Legacy systems preservation

  • Data standards for measurement, accuracy, and precision

2. Decision support tools

  • Probabilistic life-cycle scenario analysis

  • Valuation analysis (inherent value of asset and economic value of mobility benefits)

  • Benefits determination

  • Performance measures for integrating customer and organizational goals

  • Presentation of asset management results

3. Implementation

  • Organizational commitment

  • Barriers to implementation

4. Education

  • Operational training for collecting and managing data, applying analytical tools, and interpreting and presenting results

  • Organizational training for broad spectrum of functions and levels

  • Outreach (awareness) training

Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

Table B-3 Infrastructure Renewal Working Group (Pavements)

Theme

Emphasis Areas

1. Designs and materials

  • Prediction of pavement performance

  • Quantification of total life-cycle costs

  • Long-term durability of paving materials

2. Construction and maintenance techniques and technologies

  • Road user cost data for traffic congestion and delays

  • Impact of nontraditional contracting practices on construction time

  • Long-term durability of construction materials

  • Specialized construction and nondestructive testing equipment

3. Safer, environmentally friendly pavements

  • Long-term performance of recycled pavement materials

  • Pavement surface properties and characteristics related to noise, safety, and vehicle-pavement interaction

4. Education, communication, and job training

  • Existing and new educational program improvements

  • Deployment of new technologies into research efforts

5. Promotion and delivery of innovation

  • Converting research results into implementable products

  • Management techniques for product delivery

Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

Table B-4 Infrastructure Renewal Working Group (Highway Structures)

Theme

Emphasis Areas

1. Enhanced materials, structural systems, and technologies

  • Properties and characteristics of materials

  • Fiber-reinforced polymer composites

  • High-performance concrete and steel

  • Advanced corrosion protection systems

2. Efficient maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction

  • Cost benefits of design-build approach

  • Maintenance outsourcing and contract maintenance

  • Cost benefits of preventive maintenance

  • Life-cycle costs of innovative prefabricated systems

3. Safety assurance of highway structures for extreme events

  • Acceptable risk under extreme events

  • Bridge instrumentation program implementation

  • Structure performance specifications

4. Assessment and management of bridges and other structures

  • Enhancements such as the inclusion of geographic information systems data

  • Adaptation of bridge management system frameworks for structures other than bridges

  • Nondestructive testing technologies

  • Databases to support bridge management systems

  • Risk management and capital investment strategies

5. Enhanced specifications for improved structural performance

  • High-performance materials specifications

  • Fiber-reinforced polymer composite materials specifications

  • Rapid replacement and repair specifications

  • Specifications for structures other than bridges and for other transportation modes

  • Load resistance factor design–based geotechnical engineering research and validation studies

6. Information and automation for structures design, construction, and maintenance

  • Computer-integrated management system for bid estimating, project management, and construction

  • Computer-integrated–automated project delivery system

  • Data to link related design components

  • Protocols for storing and managing project data

  • Interactive Internet modules related to load and resistance factor design, bridge management systems, and inspection

  • Protocols for online access to AASHTO specifications and transportation guides

  • Automation support of design and analysis tools

  • Software verification-validation

AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

Table B-5 Operations and Mobility Working Group

Theme

Emphasis Areas

1. Customers, customer expectations, and customer needs

  • Customer expectations

  • Impacts of competing services

  • System operation warrants

  • Performance measures

  • Training in meeting customer needs

  • Crosscutting issues

2. Maximizing efficiency and minimizing congestion

  • Performance objectives

  • Impact of operations on behavior of travelers

  • Evaluating performance

  • Predictive transportation management

  • Monitoring facility performance

  • Operational management

  • Incident management

  • Personnel and agency organization

  • Interagency relationships and regional transportation management

  • Work zone and social events management

  • Weather response

  • Travel demand management

  • Legal and regulatory barriers

  • Trade-offs between operational and infrastructure improvements

  • Relationships between transportation management and alternate modes of transportation

  • Crosscutting issues

3. Information needs and requirements

  • Information requirements of users

  • Relationship between information and traveler behavior

  • Data needs of agency personnel

  • Low-cost data-collection techniques

  • Rural characteristic and information needs

  • Institutional issues associated with data sharing

  • Information presentation needs of disabled people

  • Crosscutting issues

4. Transportation safety

  • Strategies for incident response

  • Advanced technology applications

  • Grade crossing and work zone safety

  • Photo enforcement

Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

Theme

Emphasis Areas

 

  • Combine enforcement with improved operations

  • Communicating successful practices

  • Pedestrian safety

  • Speed regulation

  • Crosscutting issues

5. Environmental issues

  • Environmental science

  • Analysis tools

  • Impacts of operational measures

  • Best practices

  • Relationship between operations and environment of neighborhoods and communities

  • Crosscutting issues

6. Intermodal interfaces and efficiencies

  • Goods movement

  • Supply-chain management concepts

  • Impact of teletravel on access to services and transportation mobility

  • Institutional and cultural response to increased emphasis on operations

  • Crosscutting issues

7. Research programs and processes

(None)

Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

Table B-6 Policy Analysis, Planning, and Systems Monitoring Working Group

Theme

Emphasis Areas

1. Improving understanding of interactions between transportation and society

  • Demographic interactions

  • Economic interactions

  • Technology interactions

2. Enhancing data-driven decision-making tools

  • Linkage between investment and benefits

  • Performance measures

  • Innovative financing approaches

  • Alternative revenue and tax sources

  • Traditional highway user funding

  • Public-private partnerships

3. Improving monitoring of evolving trends

  • Sustainable data collection

  • More responsive analytical tools

  • Continuing, coordinated, comprehensive system monitoring

4. Advancing multimodal transportation planning

  • Performance-based planning

  • Collaborative planning and partnerships

  • Management and operations

  • Planning and programming

  • Multimodal and intermodal planning

  • Goods movement planning

  • Technology

  • Environment and sustainability

Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

Table B-7 Crosscutting Topics

Topic

Working Group

Theme or Emphasis Area

Safety

Safety

Infrastructure




Operations

All

Work zone safety

Safer pavements

Safety assurance of structures

Incident management

Work zone management

Advanced technologies

Grade crossings

Enforcement

Pedestrians

Environment

Infrastructure

Operations



Policy

Environmentally friendly pavements

Environmental issues

Weather response

Analytical tools

System monitoring

Partnerships

Goods movement

Environment and sustainability

Planning

Safety



Infrastructure






Policy

Safety management and data systems

Off-road facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists

Information management

Decision support tools

Less disruptive construction and maintenance

Cost benefits of design-build approach

Cost benefits of preventive maintenance

Bridge management systems

All

Information and data

Safety


Infrastructure





Operations

Policy

Safety management and data systems

Crash data for vulnerable road users

Information management

Training for collecting and managing data

Road user cost data

Information and automation for structures

User information needs

Technology interactions

Innovative finance

Sustainable data collection

Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

Topic

Working Group

Theme or Emphasis Area

Performance measures

Infrastructure



Operations





Policy

Integrating customer and organizational goals

Pavement performance

Performance of operational activities

User and community goals

Cost-effectiveness of performance measuring systems

Monitoring facility performance

Performance measures

Performance-based planning

Multimodal and intermodal planning

Workforce training

Infrastructure

Operations

Safety

Asset management

Educational programs—pavements

Meeting customer needs

Driver skills

Driver-fitness monitoring

Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

APPENDIX C
University Transportation Research Centers

Part 1: University Transportation Centers

These centers were designated in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) or competed as regional centers to receive TEA-21 funding. Federal funding is matched on a 50:50 basis and is subject to a variable obligation limitation ceiling, which reduced the amounts shown by approximately 12 percent in Fiscal Year 2000.

Table C-1 Group A: Ten Regional Centers Competitively Selected

Location

Theme

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Region 1)

Strategic management of transportation systems

City College of New York (Region 2)

Regional mobility and accessibility investment strategies

Pennsylvania State University (Region 3)

Advanced technologies in transportation operations and management

University of Tennessee (Region 4)

Transportation safety

University of Wisconsin– Madison (Region 5)

Transportation investment and operations

Texas A&M University (Region 6)

Sustainable transportation for mobility and economic strength

Iowa State University (Region 7)

Transportation management systems and operationsa

North Dakota State University (Region 8)

Rural and nonmetropolitan transportation

University of California, Berkeley (Region 9)

Improving accessibility for all

University of Washington (Region 10)

Management and planning of intermodal operations

NOTE: Each receives $1 million per year from 1998 to 2003.

aFrom 1988 to 1995, the theme was intelligent transportation systems and geographic information systems; from 1995 to 1999, the center operated without federal funding.

Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

Table C-2 Group B: Eight Congressionally Designated Centers

Location

Theme

Assumption College

Transportation and environmental education for 21st century

Purdue University

Safe, quiet, and durable highways

Rutgers University

Advanced infrastructure and transportation

South Carolina State University

Transportation intermodalism

University of Central Florida

Advanced transportation simulation

University of Denver and Mississippi State University

Intermodal transportation—planning, design, and assessment

University of Southern California and California State University, Long Beach

Metropolitan transportation research

NOTE: Each received $300,000 per year in 1998 and 1999 and $500,000 in 2000 and 2001; limited competition with Group C centers for fifth and sixth years.

Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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.

Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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.

Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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.

Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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

Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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

Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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

Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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).

Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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.

Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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.

Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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

Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×

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).

Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2001. The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10222.
×
Page 140
Next: Research and Technology Coordinating Committee Biographical Information »
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261 Get This Book
×
 The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: Special Report 261
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!

TRB Special Report 261 - The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology examines the federal role in the nation's overall highway research and technology (R&T) effort. Its emphasis is on determining whether the focus and activities of the federal program are appropriate in light of the needs of the highway system and its stakeholders as well as the roles and activities of other national highway R&T programs.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!