6
Summary Findings and Recommendations

Highway transportation is the principal circulatory system for the national economy. It has contributed to the past few decades of national economic growth but is under severe stress due to heavy demand, aging of a huge capital stock, environmental impacts, and shortages of funding to address these problems. Continued innovations to make highways perform better, last longer, and cost less are essential to sustaining the contributions made by highways to national prosperity. Current spikes in energy prices could have profound effects on highway transportation, including the funding of highway and transit programs, the consequences of which are poorly understood. Research on such issues is needed to guide national and state policy decisions. Public-sector highway research has been the primary source of innovation and insight to meet national needs for highway transportation, but the programs that support this research are also under stress because of funding and other constraints. This chapter summarizes the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee’s (RTCC’s) evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the federal investment in highway research during 2006–2009 and presents recommendations based on those findings.

SUMMARY FINDINGS

Principles for Research

This report has analyzed the conformance of highway research funded through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) to the principles for research articulated by Congress in the preamble to the research title (Title V),



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 131
6 Summary Findings and Recommendations Highway transportation is the principal circulatory system for the national economy. It has contributed to the past few decades of national economic growth but is under severe stress due to heavy demand, aging of a huge capital stock, environmental impacts, and shortages of funding to address these problems. Continued innovations to make highways perform better, last longer, and cost less are essential to sustaining the contributions made by highways to national prosperity. Current spikes in energy prices could have profound effects on highway transportation, including the funding of highway and transit programs, the consequences of which are poorly understood. Research on such issues is needed to guide national and state policy decisions. Public-sector highway research has been the primary source of innovation and insight to meet national needs for highway trans- portation, but the programs that support this research are also under stress because of funding and other constraints. This chapter summarizes the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee’s (RTCC’s) eval- uation of the strengths and weaknesses of the federal investment in high- way research during 2006–2009 and presents recommendations based on those findings. SUMMARY FINDINGS Principles for Research This report has analyzed the conformance of highway research funded through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) to the principles for research articulated by Congress in the preamble to the research title (Title V), 131

OCR for page 131
132 The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses and it has presented the committee’s judgment about priority program areas. These findings are summarized below. Full Innovation Cycle The portfolio of highway research programs managed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Research and Innovative Tech- nology Administration (RITA), and the Strategic Highway Research Pro- gram (SHRP) 2 collectively covers the full innovation cycle, with activities in agenda setting, research conduct, technology transfer, and deploy- ment. More effort is needed, however, to establish national priorities that would inform all highway research programs, and additional resources are required to ensure that successful research results are deployed to the field. Highway research in the United States has a decentralized manage- ment structure: each state has a program, some private-sector companies and associations have programs, and there are complementary federal programs. This structure was established in 1936, shortly after the found- ing of the federal–state highway partnership, and continues to serve the nation well. The geographic scale of the United States results in wide vari- ation across the states in population, development patterns, congestion, economies, climate, soil conditions, and sources of materials. Thus states, as the principal owners and operators of highways, require individual research programs to focus on their particular needs. The State Planning and Research (SP&R) Program is funded through Title I but linked to Title V through requirements under this principle that FHWA work with the states in research, development, and technology (RD&T). The SP&R program links federal and state programs, ensures cooperation, and avoids duplication; it is also an essential element in the deployment of innovations at the state and local levels. In principle, the federal role of coordinating across research programs, leading in advanced research, fill- ing gaps not covered by state or private programs, and facilitating tech- nology transfer provides coherence across this decentralized enterprise, avoids duplication, and facilitates innovation. The considerable expansion of funding for University Transportation Centers (UTCs) in SAFETEA-LU and the lack of linkage between federal mission agencies and individual UTCs have made apparent the lack of a prioritized national research agenda for highways that reflects broad-based

OCR for page 131
Summary Findings and Recommendations 133 stakeholder input and support. FHWA’s Corporate Master Plan for Research, Deployment, and Innovation has committed the agency to processes for the conduct of its programs that are consistent with the SAFETEA-LU principles. The agency has mission-oriented research plans in each of its program areas that were developed with stakeholder input. The Corporate Master Plan and FHWA’s research plans, however, define federal rather than national priorities. SAFETEA-LU directs UTCs to ensure that their research is consistent with the 2002 report Highway Research and Technology: The Need for Greater Investment (National Highway R&T Partnership 2002) or with the Federal Transit Adminis- tration’s National Research and Technology Program. The former, how- ever, presents a wide range of research topics to make the case for additional investment in highway research and development (R&D) but does not establish priorities. Because of the restrictions on use of most federal funds to match UTC funding, federal agencies have few incentives to offer to influence the direction of UTC research. An ongoing set of carefully developed national priorities would help focus the efforts of all highway research programs. Justification for Federal Investment The RD&T programs of FHWA, RITA, and SHRP 2 are easily justified by the criteria of national significance, suboptimal private investment, and the importance of encouraging more efficient use of federal aid. The education component of the UTC Program is justified by the national significance of having a skilled transportation workforce available in a national labor mar- ket. There is certainly a need for independent fundamental and advanced highway research of the sort that is typically performed at universities, but the UTC Program requirement of matching research funding on a dollar- for-dollar basis results in too heavy a bias toward highly applied research. Most of the matching funding is provided by states through SP&R fund- ing, and most state departments of transportation (DOTs) want research to address specific short-term problems they confront. Content The federal highway research program does not cover all the content areas Congress expects, largely as an inevitable consequence of overdesignation

OCR for page 131
134 The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses and earmarks. Because of the resulting required cuts in existing programs, very little planning research and virtually no policy research appears in FHWA’s portfolio, creating significant gaps in the FHWA program. FHWA was also forced to make severe cuts in funding for support of its research and testing laboratories, as well as information dissemination and exchange between and among researchers and practitioners. The 2008 Technical Cor- rections legislation redressed some of these shortfalls, but not all. Another concern is adequate resources for deployment activities. Much of FHWA’s applied RD&T program is designed to foster and sup- port the adoption of innovations by the states and local governments that own and operate roads. Fostering innovations requires more than simply convincing states and local governments about the merits of new ideas. It must encompass deliberate programs of technology transfer, which include development of manuals, guidebooks, and specifications, where appropriate, and may include pilot projects to prove that new concepts work in the field. Adoption of innovations may also require incentives that reduce the risk of trying something new. Important progress has been made under SAFETEA-LU. The Explor- atory Advanced Research Program is an important new initiative. Advanced research refers to research with the potential to result in break- throughs in understanding that could substantially improve practice. No entity other than the federal government is capable of supporting this type of risky but vitally important research. Congress increased funding substantially for advanced research in SAFETEA-LU; such research cur- rently represents about 15 percent of FHWA’s and SHRP 2’s total port- folios and about 8 percent of all of Title V and SHRP 2 funding. Stakeholder Input FHWA has significantly revised its RD&T programs to foster stakeholder input, as reflected in agencywide commitments made in the agency’s Corporate Master Plan. FHWA’s ability to deliver on the commitments made in this plan, however, which derive from the requirements placed on the agency by the research principles of SAFETEA-LU, is constrained by the lack of any authorized funding for this purpose. The 50-50 matching requirement for the UTC Program provides for responsiveness to sponsors, ensuring the relevance that stakeholder

OCR for page 131
Summary Findings and Recommendations 135 involvement is meant to achieve. However, because state DOTs provide most of the matching funds and their interests are usually highly applied, the program has drifted away from the original intent to fund funda- mental or advanced transportation research at universities. SHRP 2 is a good model of stakeholder involvement in research. Includ- ing the pre–SAFETEA-LU planning phases, the program has allowed stakeholders to set program goals, develop a research agenda, select proj- ects, merit review proposals, and peer review projects and their products. Competition and Merit Review Most of FHWA’s RD&T funding is awarded competitively, and merit review is used for the purpose. Use of external experts in merit review is part of the agency’s plans, but its practice is limited by inadequate resources. Other important points related to this principle include the following: • About 18–38 percent of Title V and SHRP 2 funding is earmarked by Congress, depending on how one defines an earmark; therefore, at least 18 percent of the funding fails to adhere to the competition and merit review criterion.1 Moreover, some earmarked projects are not nationally significant. • The committee has concerns about how much FHWA relies on indefi- nite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for awarding research funding because of the way in which this contracting procedure limits the pool of potential competitors. • SHRP 2 programs are responsive to stakeholders, and 80 percent of SHRP 2 funds are awarded in full and open competition, with deci- sions made through merit review by external experts. The remaining 1 If one includes all the earmarked research in Title V, which is mostly highway-related but includes a number of earmarked research programs administered by other modal administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, along with SHRP 2, the total reaches 24 percent. The share earmarked grows if SHRP 2 is considered an earmark, as it is by some. Because SHRP 2 research funds are all subject to full and open competition, however, RTCC does not consider SHRP 2 to be an earmark. For all of Title V, which also includes training and education, the UTC Program, and the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Program among others, along with all SHRP 2 funding, 35 percent is earmarked if SHRP 2 is included, and 24 percent if it is not. If the analysis is restricted to FHWA’s share of Title V, then 18 percent of FHWA’s budget is earmarked if SHRP 2 is not considered an earmark and 38 percent is earmarked if SHRP 2 is considered an earmark.

OCR for page 131
136 The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses percentage of funds covers stakeholder involvement processes and administration. • Because about 62 percent of Title V UTCs and 58 percent of Title V UTC funding are earmarked, a major portion of the UTC Program fails to meet the criterion of merit review and awarding of funds based on competition. The practice of earmarking is often justified by the ability of elected representatives to best judge the needs of their constituencies. Selecting the most meritorious research ideas is arguably a more complex process. The best research proposals may come from institutions outside a rep- resentative’s own jurisdiction, for example. The merit review process for the selection of research proposals by expert peers, along with peer review of completed research, has made the U.S. scientific enterprise the envy of the world. These standards prevail in the legislation governing the renowned programs of the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, but not in the legislation governing the programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Performance Review and Evaluation The outputs of all highway RD&T projects funded by FHWA are evalu- ated by agency staff. End users are also invited and encouraged to review the results of major projects in many FHWA R&T programs. FHWA has established peer committees to review its Long-Term Pavement Perfor- mance (LTPP) Program and its pavement technology development and deployment programs. SHRP 2 projects and products are evaluated by staff, Expert Task Groups made up of stakeholders, and the SHRP 2 Technical Coordinating Committees. The Government Accountability Office will also evaluate SHRP 2. It is difficult to judge the research ben- efits of the UTC Program. Each program is required to undergo peer review, but the results of that review are not made public. Individually earmarked universities and research institutes outside of the UTC Pro- gram have no real accountability for the funds they receive. Funding The level of investment in highway R&D is far from adequate. Funding for highway R&D is only about one-quarter the level of industrial investment

OCR for page 131
Summary Findings and Recommendations 137 in R&D: industrial R&D equals about 3.34 percent of revenues from sales, but highway R&D is only 0.88 percent of highway funding (a public- sector proxy for revenues from sales). Congress designated and earmarked funding for specific research pro- grams in SAFETEA-LU that exceeded the total amount authorized for Title V, and this resulted in significant unintended consequences. For- merly, FHWA supported many RD&T activities with authorized fund- ing that was not specifically designated by Congress. In addition to having to scale back many programs to fund all the SAFETEA-LU desig- nations and earmarks, FHWA lost all funding for specific activities. Some of this funding was restored 3 years after passage of SAFETEA-LU in the Technical Corrections legislation. Nonetheless, even after that legisla- tion, requirements placed on FHWA by SAFETEA-LU are underfunded or not funded at all (see Table 6-1). Policy research was virtually elimi- nated. (The $1 million in annual funding restored in the Technical Cor- rections legislation is far short of the $9 million to $10 million FHWA previously had available for policy research.) No funding is available to meet some elements of the SAFETEA-LU principles for RD&T, includ- ing performance review and evaluation involving external experts and stakeholders. Major programs strongly supported by stakeholders, such as SHRP 2, planning and environmental cooperative research, the Long- Term Bridge Performance (LTBP) Program, and the LTPP Program, are significantly underfunded compared with their authorized levels, thereby compromising their integrity and intent. The request for SHRP 2, for example, was $75 million annually over 6 years; $50 million annually TABLE 6-1 FHWA RD&T Programs Significantly Reduced or Zero Funded by SAFETEA-LU TEA-21, SAFETEA-LU, FY 2003 FY 2008 Difference Program ($ millions) ($ millions) (percent) −50 Operations 16.2 8.1 −27 Safety 19.4 14.1 −13 Planning and Environment 23.1 20.2 −87 Policy 9.5 1.2 −63 R&T Program Support 12.0 4.4 NOTE: FY = fiscal year; TEA-21 = Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

OCR for page 131
138 The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses was authorized over 4 years, $42.3 million of which will actually be received. Thus the program received only 36 percent of the total requested amount of funding over 4 instead of 6 years. RECOMMENDATIONS Principles for Research To the maximum extent practicable, that is, in almost all instances, FHWA and RITA should award funds for research in accordance with the principle of competition and merit review. To ensure application of the procedures for research quality control that have helped maintain U.S. leadership in science and technology, funding to universities through the UTC Program should be awarded only through the application of this principle. All universities should be allowed to compete for these funds regardless of prior levels of transportation research. Research projects should be awarded through contracts, cooperative agreements, or grants rather than through IDIQs. IDIQs have an appro- priate role in such areas as testing and development, technical assistance, and other support for federal research programs and laboratories, and in cases when research must be initiated on a fast track to meet national pri- orities. Sole-source funding should be allowed for in the relatively rare circumstances where it is appropriate, such as when only a single agency has the capability required. Congress recognized the importance of advanced, policy, and plan- ning research to the federal program by including them under the “con- tent” principle for Title V. The Exploratory Advanced Research Program begun under SAFETEA-LU should be continued. To permit UTCs to devote more of their efforts to advanced research, the matching require- ment for UTC research should be reduced to a 20 percent university match. Policy research funding should be increased above the levels that existed before SAFETEA-LU; the activities funded through this pro- gram need to be restored. In addition, many pressing questions can be addressed through research and demonstrations. For example, continued high gasoline prices will have profound consequences for how the nation funds highway and transit programs. Much work needs to be done to develop alternative funding mechanisms, with appropriate consideration

OCR for page 131
Summary Findings and Recommendations 139 of the trade-offs involved. FHWA also needs to have resources to assist states, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and nongovern- mental organizations in carrying out federal planning and environmental requirements. Additional support for data collection and improvements to travel models are needed for MPOs and states to fulfill their obligations. Finally, in accordance with the principle of federal support for research and technology transfer by the states, the SP&R Program should be reauthorized. Funding FHWA should be provided the resources it needs to deliver on the com- mitments made in its Corporate Master Plan to involve stakeholders more substantively in its RD&T program, specifically in agenda setting, merit review, and peer review. FHWA should be provided more funding for mission-related activities, such as program support for regulations and oversight, technical assistance, information sharing, technical exchange, and other deployment activities. Funding for many program areas significantly cut back in SAFETEA-LU, including operations, safety, and planning and environmental research, should be restored. Funding for policy research should be restored and expanded to meet pressing national needs. FHWA should be given resources for stakeholder technical assistance and deployment activities in the planning and environmental area that were formerly provided under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Specific pro- grams supported by stakeholders also require additional attention. RTCC recommends that • Congress consider extending SHRP 2 for 2 years into the next autho- rization and funding it under Title 1, as the states have requested;2 • The LTPP Program be funded to complete the data collection required for the experiment, fund the analysis needed to realize the benefits of 2 RTCC endorsed the funding of SHRP 2 in its 2001 report The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology. The program was subsequently authorized in SAFETEA-LU, and TRB was asked to manage the program. The committee believes that the program meets all the principles of research laid out in SAFETEA-LU. The program received much less funding and time than was requested and therefore is a candidate for continued funding. Even so, the committee does not wish to be per- ceived to be recommending future work for TRB to manage. Thus the committee’s recommenda- tion urges Congress to consider funding of an extension of the program on its merits.

OCR for page 131
140 The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses the investment, and preserve the massive database on road perfor- mance collected under the program (according to one estimate, these activities would cost $9 million annually through 2015); • The LTBP Program and other programs with broad-based stake- holder support authorized in SAFETEA-LU be reauthorized; • The surface transportation environment and planning research pro- gram supported by stakeholders be authorized as a cooperative research program as recommended in Surface Transportation Environmental Research: A Long-Term Strategy (TRB 2002); and • Funding for research programs to improve travel forecasting models and practice be authorized as recommended in Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future Direction (TRB 2007). Data Collection Much greater emphasis on data collection is necessary. The ability to answer many of the most important policy questions in highway trans- portation requires much better data. Research and better data are also needed in the planning area to develop the advanced modeling tools needed to meet federal and local planning and environmental mandates. States and MPOs rely heavily on the National Household Transportation Survey; that survey was dropped by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), whose funding was also sharply reduced in SAFETEA-LU. Similarly, better and more timely data on freight movements are essential for improved planning. The Commodity Flow Survey, which is still part of BTS’s port- folio, should be sustained and enhanced to meet user requirements. Agenda Setting Aside from the specific set of vital initiatives undertaken through SHRP 2, the lack of a national prioritized research agenda for highways has been made apparent by the wide variety of research topics being pursued by FHWA, the states, and the UTCs. To some extent, this variety is desir- able. Mission agencies have a responsibility for RD&T to support meet- ing their legal responsibilities. States have their own priorities that they should be encouraged to pursue. Part of the rationale for creating the UTC Program was to encourage and allow discretion for academic researchers to pursue novel ideas that had not been recognized by

OCR for page 131
Summary Findings and Recommendations 141 FHWA or the states. Even so, the UTC Program has grown to represent 16 percent of all SAFETEA-LU–funded research, and it is important to maximize the return on this investment. Although the mission agencies have some influence over the priorities in their own programs, they are not able to match UTC funds to influence the centers to focus on national priorities. Establishment of communitywide consensus on national high- way research priorities would help focus all highway research programs on the most important areas. FHWA should be given the resources to take the lead in establishing an ongoing process whereby the highway community can set these priorities. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS Even within current constraints, the federal investment in highway research is a sound one. Publicly funded highway research programs have developed innovations that have resulted in longer-lived assets at lower costs, reduced environmental impacts, saved lives, and improved economic efficiency. Additional innovation will be needed to improve safety, reduce congestion, address environmental and energy concerns, and provide the quality highway system the nation’s citizens expect. Adoption of the above recommendations would provide the nation with an improved program that would yield even greater dividends. These addi- tional payoffs from research are urgently needed to meet the demands being placed on the highway system today and into the future. REFERENCES Abbreviation TRB Transportation Research Board National Highway R&T Partnership. 2002. Highway Research and Technology: The Need for Greater Investment. onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/rtforum/HwyRandT.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2008. TRB. 2002. Special Report 268: Surface Transportation Environmental Research: A Long-Term Strategy. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. TRB. 2007. Special Report 288: Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future Direction. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.