CHAPTER 2
The First Strategic Highway Research Program

In the early 1980s, highway research was extremely underfunded as compared with other industries. Most highway research was funded by federal and state agencies and performed in relatively small programs at the federal and state levels, at universities, and in some private-sector firms and associations. The major highway research programs were (and still are) those of FHWA; the individual state DOTs; and NCHRP, in which the state DOTs pool some of their research funds to address problems of mutual concern. Each of these programs addresses a wide variety of research in support of the missions of the sponsoring agencies (see Chapter 1). Their research agendas are determined largely through a bottom-up process in which technical experts in each area work together to identify the most important research needs in that area, and submit these needs to a management or decision-making body that allocates the available research funding. This approach ensures that each of the many disciplines that support the highway enterprise (such as structural and pavement design, materials engineering, hydraulics, safety, and numerous others) receives attention in the research agendas. However, it also means that these programs have difficulty tackling large, multifaceted problems requiring a large and consistent flow of resources over several years.

During this period, state DOTs faced several problems of this sort. The quality of asphalt and the integrity and longevity of pavements, for instance, were major problems. The economic and highway safety and overall impacts of winter storms affected almost every state. Concrete bridge decks and other bridge components were deteriorating prematurely for reasons that were not entirely clear. Several reports drawing attention to the deteriorating condition of America’s infrastructure were widely publicized and moved highway officials to address the problem actively. Although existing research programs were focused on aspects of these problems, none could concentrate sufficient resources to produce implementable solutions in an accelerated time frame.



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 32
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life -- Special Report 260 CHAPTER 2 The First Strategic Highway Research Program In the early 1980s, highway research was extremely underfunded as compared with other industries. Most highway research was funded by federal and state agencies and performed in relatively small programs at the federal and state levels, at universities, and in some private-sector firms and associations. The major highway research programs were (and still are) those of FHWA; the individual state DOTs; and NCHRP, in which the state DOTs pool some of their research funds to address problems of mutual concern. Each of these programs addresses a wide variety of research in support of the missions of the sponsoring agencies (see Chapter 1). Their research agendas are determined largely through a bottom-up process in which technical experts in each area work together to identify the most important research needs in that area, and submit these needs to a management or decision-making body that allocates the available research funding. This approach ensures that each of the many disciplines that support the highway enterprise (such as structural and pavement design, materials engineering, hydraulics, safety, and numerous others) receives attention in the research agendas. However, it also means that these programs have difficulty tackling large, multifaceted problems requiring a large and consistent flow of resources over several years. During this period, state DOTs faced several problems of this sort. The quality of asphalt and the integrity and longevity of pavements, for instance, were major problems. The economic and highway safety and overall impacts of winter storms affected almost every state. Concrete bridge decks and other bridge components were deteriorating prematurely for reasons that were not entirely clear. Several reports drawing attention to the deteriorating condition of America’s infrastructure were widely publicized and moved highway officials to address the problem actively. Although existing research programs were focused on aspects of these problems, none could concentrate sufficient resources to produce implementable solutions in an accelerated time frame.

OCR for page 32
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life -- Special Report 260 A small group of leaders from within highway agencies and the transportation research community began to articulate an approach to address this situation, consisting of a highly focused, time-constrained research program aimed at critical needs recognized by those within the highway industry, particularly the state DOTs. This approach was designed to complement existing research programs by utilizing additional funding over a prescribed time frame. The other programs would continue to pursue their broad mission-oriented agendas, coordinating with the new program as appropriate. The Strategic Transportation Research Study The new program was described in Special Report 202: America’s Highways: Accelerating the Search for Innovation (TRB 1984), also known as the Strategic Transportation Research Study or the STRS (“Stars”) report. A steering committee of highway leaders, much like the F-SHRP committee, directed the STRS work. The committee focused on developing a national research program aimed at high priorities that were not being adequately addressed by existing programs. They compared the distribution of highway agency expenditures with that of highway research expenditures to identify research areas that were being neglected relative to their importance to the agencies. Materials, paving technology, and maintenance emerged as areas of high agency investment that were being relatively neglected in research. The committee chose six research areas in which focused, accelerated, results-oriented research promised significant benefits. These areas are listed below, along with the research objective cited in the STRS report for each (TRB 1984): Asphalt—“Objective: To improve pavement performance through a research program that will provide increased understanding of the chemical and physical properties of asphalt cements and asphalt concretes. The research results would be used to develop specifications, tests, and construction procedures needed to achieve and control the pavement performance desired.” Long-term pavement performance (LTPP)—“Objective: [To] increase pavement life by the investigation of long-term performance of various designs of pavement structures and rehabilitated pavement structures, using different materials and under different loads, environments, subgrade soils, and maintenance practices.” Maintenance cost-effectiveness—“Objective: To improve the cost-effectiveness of maintenance through research that will provide technologi-

OCR for page 32
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life -- Special Report 260 cal improvements in equipment, materials, and processes and will improve the administration of maintenance programs, in the areas of budget development, program management, and resource allocation.” Protection of concrete bridge components—“Objective: To prevent the deterioration of chloride-contaminated concrete components in existing bridges and to protect new, uncontaminated bridge components from chlorides.” Cement and concrete in highway pavements and structures—“Objective: To improve the economy, versatility, and durability of concrete in highway pavements and structures through an increased understanding of the chemistry of cement hydration and the properties of concrete.” Chemical control of snow and ice on highways—“Objective: To avoid costly deterioration of bridges, pavements, and vehicles and other adverse environmental effects by reducing the dependence on chlorides for snow and ice control; improving mechanical, thermal, and other removal techniques; and producing environmentally safe alternative chemicals.” The committee recommended that $150 million be spent over 5 years, funded by 0.25 percent of federal-aid highway funds. The committee also presented a brief assessment of several administrative options under which the proposed program could be managed. Transition from STRS to SHRP The STRS report provided a vision of a focused, management-driven, time-constrained research program and a general outline of what needed to be done in each of the above six research areas. However, substantial work was needed to translate this vision and outline into the detailed plans required to execute a research program. NCHRP and FHWA provided funds to conduct the interim planning activities (called “pre-implementation” at the time). This effort was led by an interim executive director and was performed by contractors who worked under the guidance of a committee structure. In all, more than 200 individuals representing major highway stakeholder groups were involved in the pre-implementation efforts in the course of less than 2 years. The result of their work was the final report Strategic Highway Research Program: Research Plans (TRB 1986). At the same time, AASHTO agreed to a 0.25 percent “takedown” from the federal-aid highway funds to carry out the research program during the 5-year

OCR for page 32
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life -- Special Report 260 period to be covered by the 1987 highway authorizing legislation. Since this money would otherwise have gone to the states for their highway construction programs, state DOT support for the research program and its funding mechanism was an essential requirement for the program to go forward. AASHTO also supported the establishment of a new unit of the National Research Council (NRC) to carry out the program. Legislative language was subsequently developed to support these decisions. Strategic Highway Research Program In 1987 Congress passed the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Act, which authorized SHRP. The program content and funding amount and source followed the recommendations of the STRS report.1 The administrative structure followed the recommendations of the Research Plans report; that is, it became a new unit of NRC. An executive director and additional management and technical staff were recruited or borrowed from other organizations. Thus SHRP began. An extensive committee structure continued to guide the SHRP work. Overall guidance was provided by an executive committee with 14 members (plus ex officio members), including chief executive officers and chief engineers from AASHTO member departments and other representatives of the private and academic sectors. The six major research areas were condensed to four, and an advisory committee was formed for each. Expert task groups reviewed research proposals and provided advice to the executive committee, which made final decisions about contract awards. Close cooperation with AASHTO leadership and other stakeholders was a salient feature of SHRP during both the research phase and the subsequent implementation phase. SHRP research or implementation was regularly on the agenda of the AASHTO Board of Directors and the Standing Committee on Highways at their semiannual meetings. The SHRP newsletter, Focus, was widely distributed to the highway community. SHRP developed a large number of “products.” The following are examples of these products: Asphalt—The best-known product of SHRP is Superpave®, which is actually a system involving a large number of individual SHRP products. 1 Specifically, the funding was a takedown of 0.25 percent from all programs apportioned to the states, before the apportionment was made.

OCR for page 32
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life -- Special Report 260 Superpave allows pavement designers to tailor asphalt mixes to specific traffic loads and climates, thus producing pavements that are more durable and less likely to rut in extremely hot weather or to crack in extremely cold weather. The Superpave system consists of three elements: a process for selecting the most appropriate asphalt binder, a laboratory procedure for optimizing the mix design, and tests for predicting how well the mix will perform in real-world conditions. Maintenance cost-effectiveness—Asphalt and concrete pavement repair methods and materials were evaluated, and manuals and guidelines for pavement repairs that are durable and cost-effective were produced. Cement and concrete in highway pavements and structures—Improved concrete materials for bridges and pavements, methods for protecting reinforcing bars from corrosion, and new test methods and guidelines for increasing the service life of concrete pavements and structures were evaluated and developed. Chemical control of snow and ice on highways—An approach to winter maintenance that involves a combination of anti-icing strategies and road weather information systems (RWIS) was promoted. Anti-icing involves treating the pavement with salt or other chemicals that lower the freezing point of water prior to a storm to prevent ice from forming on the pavement. RWIS is a network of sensors that lets the agency know pavement and atmospheric conditions; temperature; rate of snowfall, rain, or sleet; and amount of chemicals remaining on the pavement from previous applications. This system allows the agency to be prepared for storms and to deploy materials, crews, and equipment in appropriate amounts. Work zone safety—Several products resulted from SHRP research on work zone safety, including a flashing stop/slow paddle, opposing traffic lane divider, direction indicator barricade, truck-mounted attenuator for chemical spreaders, queue detector, intrusion alarm, portable rumble strip, and all-terrain sign and stand. These products help protect both workers and motorists by warning workers of vehicles that may enter a work zone and helping motorists navigate through the zone. SHRP Implementation SHRP was designed to be a focused, short-term research program, performed by a special-purpose organization that would cease to exist once its mission had been accomplished. To gain the intended practical benefits from any

OCR for page 32
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life -- Special Report 260 research program, however, many implementation activities are required. Little funding for implementation was budgeted in the SHRP program; funding for significant implementation activities required additional legislation. In December 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which included special funding for SHRP implementation. This funding was administered by FHWA, and coordination and oversight of SHRP implementation activities became a major focus of the agency’s technology transfer activities. In addition to ISTEA funding specifically allocated for SHRP implementation, many states used a portion of their State Planning and Research funds, state funds, and in-kind activities to support SHRP implementation. Rough estimates indicate that these direct state contributions to SHRP implementation at least matched the investments provided for in ISTEA. In addition, industry was actively involved in SHRP implementation activities. Highlights of SHRP implementation activities include the following initiatives: SHRP and LTPP state coordinators, who continue to coordinate the implementation of SHRP and the execution of LTPP in their respective states; Staff loaned by state DOTs to the SHRP program; AASHTO’s efforts to develop specifications for SHRP products; The Lead States program, in which a small number of states became proficient with particular SHRP technologies and then coached other states to facilitate their implementation efforts; The AASHTO SHRP Implementation Task Force, which was so successful that it was leveraged into a new Senior-Level AASHTO Steering Group for Technology Deployment; and The TRB Superpave and LTPP Committees, which provide stakeholder and peer review of the technical development of these two components of SHRP. Assessment of SHRP Benefits The best indicators of the success of SHRP are the extent and pace of implementation of SHRP results and the consequent impact on the condition and operation of the nation’s highway system. In 1997, the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) estimated potential benefits from SHRP based on various

OCR for page 32
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life -- Special Report 260 implementation scenarios (Little et al. 1997).2 Box 2-1 shows ranges of benefit/cost ratios projected by the TTI study. In addition, FHWA conducted a study in which state DOTs were surveyed about actual benefits received from implementation of SHRP products. The following examples are taken from the results of these studies and from additional interviews. Asphalt In 1999, 45 percent of the hot-mix asphalt tonnage in the nation (on state roads and in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) was designed to the Superpave standards developed under SHRP (Mack and Dunn 2000).3 Box 2-1 Estimated Benefits of SHRP Projects TTI projected the following benefits to transportation agencies and to users from implementation of SHRP products. The numbers shown represent dollars of benefit for each dollar invested in research, development, and implementation. Asphalt products (Superpave): 26–43 for agencies 72–116 for users Snow and ice control products: 15–29 for agencies 62–124 for users Six selected concrete products: 1–3 for agencies (benefits to users not estimated) Portland cement concrete pavements: 3–11 for agencies 9–33 for users Pavement maintenance products: 36–131 for agencies 47–173 for users Work zone safety products: 1–2 for agencies 6–12 for users Source: Little et al. (1997). 2 The TTI study of economic benefits used a 20-year analysis period and projected savings or benefits for “slow,” “moderate,” and “fast” implementation scenarios. The analyses for each category of SHRP projects involved different sets of assumptions, which can be found in the study itself or in the RoadSavers series (FHWA 1997). 3 This degree of research implementation so soon after research results became available and in the absence of any regulatory mandate is unusual in the highway industry for several reasons, such as the decentralized and fragmented nature of the industry, the procurement systems generally used in the public sector, risk aversion, and other institutional issues (Bernstein and Lemer 1996; TRB 1998; TRB 1994; TRB 1996; Brach 1999).

OCR for page 32
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life -- Special Report 260 Superpave is expected to increase the life of an asphalt overlay from approximately 8 to approximately 12 years. This increased life means agency savings from reduced pavement maintenance and rehabilitation, and user savings from both smoother pavements (which reduce fuel consumption and vehicle wear and tear) and fewer traffic disruptions from road work. The TTI analysis projected annual highway agency savings nationally of almost $750 million if Superpave were fully and quickly implemented.4 Projected annual user savings (reduced delay because of fewer pavement repairs and reduced vehicle operating costs because of smoother pavements) were estimated at more than $2 billion nationwide. Pavement management has evolved to a much more sophisticated level as a result of the states’ participation in SHRP. Improved pavement management means states are making better decisions about the types and timing of pavement maintenance and rehabilitation activities, and the ultimate result is more efficient use of public funds and higher-quality roads. Maintenance Cost-Effectiveness The TTI analysis projected that state and local highway agencies collectively could save $24 million to $89 million per year in pothole repair costs, depending on how quickly they implemented the associated SHRP products. Pavement preservation techniques were projected to yield nationwide annual savings to highway agencies of $102 million to $385 million, depending on how quickly the new preventive maintenance strategies were adopted. Motorists would face fewer delays and less wear and tear on vehicles and could thus save $167 million to $627 million annually in user costs. South Carolina found that the spray-injection pothole repair method evaluated by SHRP takes less time, requires fewer workers, and lasts longer than the state’s traditional method.5 North Carolina expects the crack-sealing method endorsed by SHRP to increase the life of crack seals by 40 percent—from 5 to 7 years. Cement and Concrete in Highway Pavements and Structures On the basis of six of the SHRP products in this category, TTI forecast potential savings to highway agencies nationwide of $4.1 million to $15.5 million per year (over a 20-year period), depending on the pace of implementation. 4 For this projection, the study assumed a more conservative increase in pavement life from 8 to 10 years, rather than 12 years. 5 State-specific examples of successful implementation of SHRP products are from the RoadSavers website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/winter/roadsvr/casehome.htm.

OCR for page 32
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life -- Special Report 260 These savings would result from lower testing and maintenance costs and extended service life. Alaska saves $1,400 per bridge using a new test for evaluating chloride content. In a year and a half, this test saved the state $95,000. Idaho gets rapid results from a new test designed to detect alkali-silica reactivity, which causes severe cracking in concrete, at about one-tenth the cost of old tests. Oregon has preserved three landmark bridges and saved $50 million using cathodic protection technology evaluated by SHRP. Electrochemical chloride extraction, another test evaluated by SHRP, has increased the lives of two Virginia bridges by 12 to 15 years at a lower cost and with less disruption as compared with replacement or rehabilitation. A SHRP-developed specification for high-performance concrete (HPC) encouraged the use of this material on bridges, allowing them to be built lighter and stronger. Dozens of bridges have been built with HPC to date. There are several potential benefits: in some cases there are overall savings in materials since less HPC is required in comparison with ordinary concrete; longer spans mean fewer bridge piers, which can pose obstructions to rivers, traffic, and environmentally sensitive areas beneath the bridge; and lighter bridge decks, for example, can allow older bridges to be rehabilitated without the need for weight restrictions, which can be an impediment to commercial traffic. Chemical Control of Snow and Ice on Highways Winter maintenance activities (snow and ice control) have changed radically as a result of SHRP. New technologies and methods have resulted in direct savings to highway agencies from reduced personnel and material requirements. Users and communities have avoided billions of dollars in economic losses because their highways have remained open during storms or been quickly returned to operation if closed. In addition, improved winter maintenance techniques can reduce the use of salt and abrasives, thereby minimizing environmental impacts. Estimated savings per agency are $1,300 to $30,000 per truck route,6 depending on the severity of the storm. User savings from increased safety (reduced accident costs) are estimated to range from $12,000 to $107,000 per truck route. Nevada expects its expanding 6 “Truck route” refers to the segmentation of the highway network that agencies use to deploy equipment for winter maintenance efficiently and effectively. Usually a truck equipped with a plow and/or anti-icing or deicing materials is assigned to a specific route on the network. This route often forms the basis for winter maintenance budgeting and is therefore a reasonable unit of analysis for calculating benefits from SHRP winter maintenance products.

OCR for page 32
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life -- Special Report 260 RWIS network to provide motorists and shippers with safer, more reliable travel conditions; save $7 million in labor, materials, and other costs during the next 25 years; and protect the environment by reducing the amount of chemicals and abrasives used. In Colorado, an anti-icing/RWIS strategy is helping to improve air quality by reducing the use of sand and other abrasives, which are responsible for about 20 percent of Denver’s persistent winter air quality problems. Work Zone Safety In addition to saving lives, the work zone safety devices developed under SHRP save money. Experts in the TTI study estimated that use of the flashing stop/slow paddle and the opposing traffic lane divider alone could reduce work zone crashes by approximately 5 percent, leading to nationwide annual savings of $2.1 million to $4.1 million for agencies and $15 million to $30 million for highway users. Success Factors Early in the present study, the F-SHRP committee invited individuals familiar with SHRP to share their experiences and assessment of the program. From these discussions and from the broad outreach process described in Chapter 1, the following were identified as success factors for SHRP: SHRP focused on a small number of high-priority national needs. SHRP complemented existing programs instead of competing with them. The administrative structure of the program encouraged accelerated research within a fixed time frame; kept the work from being caught up in the politics or bureaucracy of any existing program or organization; and avoided any incentive to establish a longer-term interest for those involved, which could have had an adverse influence on the conduct of the research. The program was founded on a clear vision of the importance of research for the vitality of the highway industry and society and on the argument that research funding for highways was extremely inadequate in comparison with funding for other industries and with highway research funding in other countries. The program was carried out through a process involving clear stake-holder—especially state—ownership. State DOT personnel chaired and served on SHRP committees, and DOTs were permitted to spend federal-aid money on SHRP implementation.

OCR for page 32
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life -- Special Report 260 Close cooperation with industry was a key feature of SHRP. Industry members served on the executive committee and various technical committees and participated in pilot tests and training. SHRP was a centrally administered program, but the individual research projects were awarded on a competitive basis through a process that was open to all qualified researchers. The research proposals were reviewed by experts to ensure that the highest-quality proposals would be selected. The program and administrative structure allowed sufficient flexibility to implement midcourse corrections to the research plan on the basis of interim results. The willingness and ability to change course when confronted with compelling evidence kept the program focused on achieving results more than on fulfilling plans. Lessons Learned It is important to review the SHRP experience to find ways of duplicating its successes and avoiding its problems. Assessment of the SHRP experience yields some important lessons that the F-SHRP committee attempted to apply in carrying out this study. Among these lessons are the following: Relatively few individuals were directly involved with the STRS study, which led to the conceptual design for SHRP. While this situation was appropriate at the time, especially given the innovative nature of the STRS approach, the very success of SHRP necessitates broader involvement in the development of F-SHRP. This is the case because many in the highway community who were not involved in SHRP are now aware of the potential impacts of such a program and are interested in contributing to its direction. For this reason, the F-SHRP committee engaged in an extensive outreach process for almost 2 years to obtain as much input as possible from across the spectrum of highway stakeholders (see Chapter 1 and Appendix A). Implementation of research results and the significant funding required for this purpose were not incorporated in SHRP itself, but were seen as a future need to be met as products became available. In addition, no particular party was assigned responsibility for implementation. SHRP assumed this responsibility during the second half of the research phase, in coordination with a number of FHWA programs. FHWA expanded this responsibility and received legislative funding for the purpose as the SHRP research phase was ending. While it is unrealistic to assume in advance that

OCR for page 32
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life -- Special Report 260 each research activity will yield a product meriting an organized implementation effort, it is important for the overall program to have the resources required to proceed with vigorous implementation when warranted. Implementation issues are addressed in more detail in Chapter 8. While the establishment of a new organization to run SHRP had many benefits, the time and costs associated with start-up and close-down of the SHRP organization introduced some inefficiencies. This concern is addressed in the discussion of administrative structure in Chapter 8. Concluding Comments In summary, the SHRP experience demonstrated that a focused, time-constrained research program can be a highly effective complement to existing traditional highway research programs. While the latter programs address a wide variety of needs, continually moving the highway industry forward, the occasional concentration of additional resources in a few strategic focus areas can accelerate progress toward implementable solutions and advance the state of the art for the entire industry. In this report, the F-SHRP committee recommends a program of research and technology that can provide solutions for some of the most pressing problems faced by the highway community now and well into the future. References ABBREVIATIONS FHWA Federal Highway Administration TRB Transportation Research Board Bernstein, H. M., and A. C. Lemer. 1996. Solving the Innovation Puzzle: Challenges Facing the U.S. Design & Construction Industry. ASCE Press. Brach, A. 1999. Innovation in Infrastructure. Letter report to Dr. Neal Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, from the NRC Committee for the Review of the Federal Transportation Science and Technology Strategy, Sept. 3. FHWA. 1997. RoadSavers series. Publications Nos. FHWA-SA-98-012,-013,-014,-015, and-016. Dec. Little, D. N., J. Memmott, F. McFarland, Z. Goff, R. Smith, C. V. Wootan, D. Zollinger, T. Tang, and J. Epps. 1997. Economic Benefits of SHRP Research. Research Report 596-1F, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Jan. Mack, P. J., and R. J. Dunn. 2000. AASHTO Task Force on SHRP Implementation: 1999–2000 Superpave Implementation. May.

OCR for page 32
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life -- Special Report 260 TRB. 1984. Special Report 202: America’s Highways: Accelerating the Search for Innovation. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. TRB. 1986. Strategic Highway Research Program: Research Plans. Final report, NCHRP Project 20-20, Washington, D.C., May. TRB. 1994. Special Report 244: Highway Research: Current Programs and Future Directions. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. TRB. 1996. Special Report 249: Building Momentum for Change: Creating a Strategic Forum for Innovation in Highway Infrastructure. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. TRB. 1998. NCHRP Research Results Digest 225: Putting Research into Practice: A Synopsis of Successful Strategies and Case Histories. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., June. Additional Sources ABBREVIATIONS FHWA Federal Highway Administration NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program TRB Transportation Research Board Byrd, L. G. 1999. Interview, April 9. During the STRS/SHRP process, Mr. Byrd served as consultant on STRS report and Interim Director of SHRP. Chamberlain, A. R., R. F. Decker, W. L. Giles, H. A. Thomason, Jr., R. L. Yarbrough, and R. Betsold. 1990. Future Program Needs for Strategic Highway Research Program Implementation. Draft report of the Subcommittee on Implementation to the SHRP Executive Committee, Aug. 14. Deen, T. B. 1999. Interview, Feb. 4. During the STRS/SHRP process, Mr. Deen served as Executive Director of TRB. Dougan, C. E. 1999. Interview, Feb. 22. During the STRS/SHRP process, Dr. Dougan served as Manager of Research, Connecticut Department of Transportation, and member of the SHRP Advisory Board on Snow and Ice Study. FHWA. 1990. Federal Highway Administration’s Commitment to the Strategic Highway Research Program: Past—Present—Future. Presented at the SHRP Coordinators’ Meeting during TRB’s Annual Meeting, Jan. FHWA. 1993. The Federal Highway Administration’s Strategic Highway Research Program Products Implementation Strategy. April 13. Francois, F. B. 1999. Interview, Feb. 2. During the STRS/SHRP process, Mr. Francois served as Executive Director, AASHTO, member of STRS Steering Committee and the SHRP Task Force, and AASHTO ex officio member of the SHRP Executive Committee. Hawks, N. F. Interviews, multiple dates throughout the study. During the STRS/SHRP process, Mr. Hawks served as Director of the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program and Director of the Asphalt Research Program.

OCR for page 32
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life -- Special Report 260 Kulash, D. J. 1999. Interview, Jan. 29. During the STRS/SHRP process, Dr. Kulash served as Executive Director of SHRP. Kulash, D. J. n.d. Improving Research Effectiveness: Some Reflections Based on Experiences within the Strategic Highway Research Program. Kulash, D. J. n.d. SHRP at Mid-Journey: Past Challenges and Future Prospects. Larson, T. D. 1999. Interview, April 11. During the STRS/SHRP process, Dr. Larson served as Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and as Chair of the STRS Steering Committee, the SHRP Task Force, and the SHRP Executive Committee. Reilly, R. J. 1999. Interview, Feb. 3. During the STRS/SHRP process, Dr. Reilly served as Director, NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, and NCHRP liaison to the SHRP Task Force.