APPENDIX C
Conformity of Individual FHWA Infrastructure Research, Development, and Technology Programs with SAFETEA-LU Principles

Innovative Pavement Research and Deployment (IPRD) Program

Funding level: About $18.6 million annually, fiscal years (FY) 2006–2009.

Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: The IPRD Program goals include research, development, deployment, and evaluation of new, cost-effective designs, materials, practices, and technologies to extend pavement life and performance, to increase safety and to reduce construction time. Although the program includes applied research, the majority of the program goals are focused on deployment and evaluation.

Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: This program focuses on innovative pavement technologies, specifications, and test methods, issues that are inherently public-sector and would not attract investment by the private sector. By aiming to extend pavement service life and performance and enhance safety, the goal of the research serves efficient use of federal funds by state and local governments.

Principle No. 3: Content: This program fills significant gaps. Some of the most important issues to be addressed in the research program extend beyond consideration of asphalt, concrete, or aggregate in isolation to how these pavement types and materials work together.

Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: The pavement program has an internal and an external component. The internal component consists of a Pavement Forum (FHWA experts in pavements at the senior level) and a Roadmap (which prioritizes the work that needs to be done



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 149
APPENDIX C Conformity of Individual FHWA Infrastructure Research, Development, and Technology Programs with SAFETEA-LU Principles Innovative Pavement Research and Deployment (IPRD) Program Funding level: About $18.6 million annually, fiscal years (FY) 2006–2009. Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: The IPRD Program goals include research, development, deployment, and evaluation of new, cost- effective designs, materials, practices, and technologies to extend pavement life and performance, to increase safety and to reduce con- struction time. Although the program includes applied research, the majority of the program goals are focused on deployment and evaluation. Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: This program focuses on innovative pavement technologies, specifications, and test methods, issues that are inherently public-sector and would not attract invest- ment by the private sector. By aiming to extend pavement service life and performance and enhance safety, the goal of the research serves efficient use of federal funds by state and local governments. Principle No. 3: Content: This program fills significant gaps. Some of the most important issues to be addressed in the research program extend beyond consideration of asphalt, concrete, or aggregate in isolation to how these pavement types and materials work together. Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: The pavement program has an inter- nal and an external component. The internal component consists of a Pavement Forum (FHWA experts in pavements at the senior level) and a Roadmap (which prioritizes the work that needs to be done 149

OCR for page 149
150 The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses and where scarce resources need to be spent). FHWA is currently conducting outreach to state departments of transportation (DOTs), industry, and academia to obtain their input and participation by forming Expert Task Groups (ETGs) that will provide technical input in the areas of concrete and asphalt. TRB’s recently formed Pavement Technology Committee, which draws from state DOTs, industry, and academia, also provides overall strategic direction for the program. Principle No. 5: Competition and merit review: Some of the work is done in-house at FHWA facilities by FHWA and contract staff, and some is awarded competitively via formal requests for proposals (RFPs). For FY 2007, approximately 30 percent of funds cover the Turner–Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) on-site contractor, equipment, materials and supplies, mobile laboratories, and program-related staff travel. Approximately 70 percent goes to outside contractors. Merit review is normally conducted by FHWA staff. Occasionally, FHWA brings in an external expert, usually from a state DOT. Principle No. 6: Performance review and evaluation: This program is sub- ject to normal FHWA RD&T evaluation. TRB’s Pavement Tech- nology and Evaluation Committee meets once a year to review FHWA’s overall pavement program and provide programmatic input. As the program is ongoing, ETGs, which include end users, meet semiannually to review programs, and members evaluate com- pleted products. Other comments: IPRD, which receives the bulk of FHWA’s discretionary funds, is funded at about $16.4 million per year and it has some directed areas. Within IPRD, however, a relatively large portion is designated for specific materials; the balance that remains to cover research topics such as surface characteristics or composite pavements may not allow FHWA to allocate the resources available optimally. Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program Funding level: About $8.3 million annually, FY 2006–2009. Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: LTPP is a product-focused research program that, because of significant budget cuts, is focused on data collection on 2,513 pavement test sections throughout the country.

OCR for page 149
Conformity of Individual Programs with SAFETEA-LU Principles 151 Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: The LTPP experiment is designed to yield fundamental improvements in knowledge about how loadings and environmental conditions affect pavement per- formance, and it may lead to substantially improved designs. The study has national significance and can lead to more efficient use of federal funding by states and local governments. Principle No. 3: Content: The LTPP Program gathers and processes data describing the structure, service conditions, and performance of pavement test sections. The near-term work is primarily data col- lection, but improvements in understanding that could occur as a result of the experiment are fundamental. Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: The LTPP Program involves substan- tial stakeholder input; state DOTs, industry, and academia have been polled repeatedly to identify needs, and national pavement needs were identified by chief engineers during site visits. The program is being conducted in partnership with the state highway agencies that own the LTPP test sections. Since 1992 FHWA has convened a panel of state DOT engineers, industry experts, and academicians to give guidance and review the program on an ongoing basis. Other stake- holders include the TRB Pavement Technology Committee, the Asphalt ETGs, and the Concrete Pavement Roadmap Executive Advisory Committee. Principle No. 5: Competition and merit review: Some of the work (about 5 percent) is done in house at FHWA facilities by FHWA and contract staff, and the remainder is awarded competitively via formal RFPs. Principle No. 6: Performance review and evaluation: In addition to nor- mal FHWA evaluation, ETGs advise and comment on the product development and delivery process, ensure dissemination of product information to the states, review research products to ensure that they are focused on national pavement needs, and evaluate the effec- tiveness of products. Other comments: Begun in 1987, LTPP is a 20-year program of data col- lection and database development for the LTPP test sections origi- nally established as part of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP). Annual funding for LTPP declined from $14.5 million under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), to

OCR for page 149
152 The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses $12.6 million in FY 1998–2003, to $9.3 million in FY 2004–2005, to just $7.2 million under SAFETEA-LU. FHWA estimated that $20 mil- lion per year was needed after FY 2003 to recover from previous underfunding and complete necessary work. With annual funding of only $7.2 million, FHWA has had to identify the most critical work that needs to be done and defer all else. The first priority in the pro- gram is to ensure that the database is as complete and the data as accu- rate as possible. Within the LTPP budget allocation, FHWA lacks the resources needed to carry out the extended analysis, product develop- ment, and implementation activities FHWA and the TRB LTPP com- mittee believe should be done. The other main issue facing the program is that funding is expected to expire in FY 2009, but the benefits of the data collection will not have been realized by then because of the lack of funding for analysis. Alkali–Silica Reactivity (ASR) Program Funding level: An average of about $2 million annually, FY 2006–2009. Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: The ASR Program is focused on the development and deployment of new technologies to address concrete failures due to alkali–silica reactivity. Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: Legislation calls for the development and deployment of technologies to prevent and miti- gate ASR in highway structures, pavements, and bridges; the legisla- tion specifically mentions the use of lithium, but the program is not limited to this. The development of products to assist states in inven- torying existing structures for ASR may improve the efficiency of use of federal funds by state and local governments. Principle No. 3: Content: The ASR Program provides for further devel- opment and deployment of techniques to prevent and mitigate ASR, including lithium-based techniques. Program content is applied research, deployment, and technology transfer. Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: The ASR Program was initiated with a stakeholder workshop, which provided the foundation for FHWA’s program plan. The plan was subsequently discussed with a repre- sentative group of stakeholders selected for the ASR Technical

OCR for page 149
Conformity of Individual Programs with SAFETEA-LU Principles 153 Working Group (TWG). The TWG will review the program on an ongoing basis. Principle No. 5: Competition and merit review: Most funding (97 percent) is awarded competitively via formal RFPs. Some work was awarded and monitored under SHRP 2. Merit review normally is performed by FHWA staff. Principle No. 6: Performance review and evaluation: Usual FHWA proce- dures apply. The TWG will review end products. Other Comments: Unlike the other designated programs, the ASR Program is applicable to both pavements and bridges. Technology transfer and deployment are managed within the pavement program. R&D is man- aged jointly by pavements and structures staff. Fundamental Properties of Asphalts and Modified Asphalts Program Funding level: About $3.4 million annually, FY 2006–2009. Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: The mission of this earmarked pro- gram is to improve the Superpave® asphalt purchase specification so that asphalts are classified accurately by how they will perform over time regardless of the crude oil source. This program is focused on the conduct of fundamental research. Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: This program is not a national priority. Principle No. 3: Content: The purpose of this program is to identify how variations in asphalt properties affect roadway performance and to develop and validate practical tests for performance variables that are missing from the current purchase specification. The program allows the Western Research Institute (WRI) to continue its funda- mental research on the effects of asphalt composition on long-term pavement performance. It is hoped that this research will improve methods used to characterize asphalts and modified asphalts, which in turn will support improved materials selection processes and reduced risk of early pavement failure. Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: This program has stakeholder input only because FHWA is asking its Asphalt ETG to review and comment.

OCR for page 149
154 The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses Principle No. 5: Competition and merit review: The program does not comply with this principle. Principle No. 6: Performance review and evaluation: The program does not comply with this principle. Other comments: None. Asphalt Research Consortium Funding level: About $6.8 million annually, FY 2006–2009. Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: This consortium is led by WRI. Other members include the University of Nevada, Reno; the Texas Transportation Institute; the University of Wisconsin, Madison; and Applied Asphalt Technologies. The mission of the consortium is to conduct research on flexible pavements and means of extend- ing the life cycle of asphalts; the focus is on fundamental research, and FHWA estimates that about 60 percent of the funding is for advanced research. Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: Federal investment in the consortium could be justified by the lack of private investment in this type of research. Principle No. 3: Content: This research fills gaps in knowledge. Its pur- pose is the validation and calibration of findings concerning the performance impact of fundamental properties of asphalt; the iden- tification of advanced technological capabilities to increase pave- ment durability and performance and reduce life-cycle costs; and the identification of the mechanism of action of polyphosphoric acid as an asphalt binder modifier, as well as its potential beneficial and deleterious effects. Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: This program has stakeholder input only because FHWA is asking its Asphalt ETG to review and comment. Principle No. 5: Competition and merit review: The program does not comply with this principle. Principle No. 6: Performance review and evaluation: The program does not comply with this principle. Other comments: None.

OCR for page 149
Conformity of Individual Programs with SAFETEA-LU Principles 155 Long-Term Bridge Performance (LTBP) Program Funding level: An average of $8.3 million, FY 2006–2009. Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: The LTBP Program includes the type of applied research, deployment, and technology that FHWA should pursue. The focus is on bridge performance (system and component), maintenance and repair effectiveness, and improved knowledge for design and management decision making. The program is intended to provide high-quality, quantitative performance data for high- way bridges that will support improved predictive models and better bridge management systems. Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: This program meets the criteria for federal investment because it addresses a public-sector responsibility that would not attract private investment; there is a clear public benefit; and it encourages stewardship of infrastructure funded in part by the federal government. Principle No. 3: Content: The data collected through this program will fill significant gaps in the understanding of how similar bridges perform under different loading and environmental conditions. Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: The initial framework for the program was developed with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) support and in conjunction with university and industry partners. Stakeholder workshops occurred in 2007. Principle No. 5: Competition and merit review: A fully competitive process will be undertaken to select the lead contractor. Principle No. 6: Performance review and evaluation: All FHWA RD&T pro- grams are subject to process and performance review. Normally, the results of FHWA RD&T projects are also subjected to independent review, usually by representatives of end-user groups (e.g., the vari- ous Technical Committees of the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures). Peer review will be conducted on a con- tinuing basis by the various oversight and advisory committees to be empaneled. Other comments: The LTBP Program is intended to be a 20-year program but is currently authorized through FY 2009. Because this program is funded at only about $9.5 million per year instead of the $20 mil- lion requested by FHWA, its achievements will be severely affected.

OCR for page 149
156 The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses The low funding levels are attributable to the overdesignation and earmarking of research funds in Title V. Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment (IBRD) Program Funding level: About $5.7 million annually, FY 2006–2007 (not includ- ing funding for High-Performance Concrete Program). Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: The IBRD Program includes agenda setting (identification of national needs and priorities), applied research, technology transfer (from research to practice), and applica- tion of new technologies (via construction projects). The integration of program elements and stakeholder involvement should facilitate deployment. Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: IBRD addresses national needs and priorities and encourages efficient use of federal funds by state and local governments by leading change and supporting the adoption of new technology. Principle No. 3: Content: The RD&T element of the program directly addresses significant highway research gaps and emerging issues with national implications by focusing on problems that require a national approach (e.g., resisting the effects of storm surge, similar to that experienced from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, on bridges subject to coastal flooding). The program supports research, technology, and education in the areas of high-performance concrete, geotechnical engineering, aerodynamics and wind engineering, and hydrology and hydrodynamic engineering. One part of the program supports innovative research on hydraulics, aerodynamics, and geotechnical engineering; another part supports the deployment of innovative approaches for bridges to be constructed. Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: Since criteria for the construction grant element of IBRD were spelled out in SAFETEA-LU, there is little room for stakeholder input. However, the RD&T element of the program has a high level of stakeholder input, as multiyear RD&T roadmaps were developed on the basis of input from a wide range of stakeholder communities, including states, industry, and academia. Principle No. 5: Competition and merit review: The construction grant program is highly competitive. In FY 2006, grants were awarded (on the basis of criteria and technical merit) to only about 30 percent of

OCR for page 149
Conformity of Individual Programs with SAFETEA-LU Principles 157 applicants. About 20 percent of the program funds (after funding of the grants) is for in-house research and program support. Principle No. 6: Performance review and evaluation: All FHWA RD&T pro- grams are subject to process and performance review. Normally, the results of FHWA RD&T projects are also subjected to independent review, usually by representatives of end-user groups (e.g., the various Technical Committees of the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures). Other comments: None. High-Performance Concrete (HPC) Bridge Research and Deployment Program Funding level: About $4 million annually, FY 2006–2007 (the HPC Bridge Research and Deployment Program is a subset of and funded via a takedown from the IBRD Program). Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: The HPC Bridge Research and Devel- opment Program is intended to cover the full innovation cycle and includes formal components to develop, market, and deploy new knowledge and technologies resulting from the program. Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: The HPC Bridge Research and Development Program addresses national needs and priorities and could lead to more efficient use of federal funds by states and local governments. Principle No. 3: Content: The RD&T element of the program directly addresses significant highway research gaps and emerging issues with national implications by focusing on problems that require a national approach. Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: The overall multiyear RD&T roadmap was developed with significant stakeholder input and is being guided by a TWG comprising representatives of states, industry, and academia. Principle No. 5: Competition and merit review: The RD&T element of the program is partially competitive: some of the work is done in-house at FHWA facilities by FHWA and contract staff (about 65 percent of funding), and some is awarded competitively via formal RFPs (about 35 percent).

OCR for page 149
158 The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses Principle No. 6: Performance review and evaluation: All FHWA RD&T programs are subject to process and performance review. Normally, the results of FHWA RD&T projects are also subjected to indepen- dent review, usually by representatives of end-user groups (e.g., the various Technical Committees of the AASHTO Highway Sub- committee on Bridges and Structures). Other comments: None. Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC) Research Program Funding level: About $0.5 million annually, FY 2006–2009. Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: The UHPC Program is intended to cover the full innovation cycle and includes formal components to develop, market, and deploy new knowledge and technologies resulting from the program. Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: The RD&T element of the program directly addresses significant highway research gaps and emerging issues with national implications by focusing on problems that require a national approach. Principle No. 3: Content: The focus of the UHPC Program is on devel- oping innovative practices, materials, components, and systems; improving knowledge and technology; accelerating fabrication and construction; improving durability and reducing long-term maintenance; and employing technology transfer to accelerate implementation. Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: The UHPC Program involves stake- holders in identifying the work to be done and reviewing the quality of the work. Principle No. 5: Competition and merit review: There is no competition because all of the work will be conducted in-house. The TWG that was assembled for the HPC Program is also assisting with the UHPC Program. It is providing both guidance and review of technical con- tent during the course of the program and will assist in championing the program’s products. Principle No. 6: Performance review and evaluation: All FHWA RD&T pro- grams are subject to process and performance review. Normally, the results of FHWA RD&T projects are also subjected to independent

OCR for page 149
Conformity of Individual Programs with SAFETEA-LU Principles 159 review, usually by representatives of end-user groups (e.g., the various Technical Committees of the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures). The TWG will assist in providing performance review (peer review) and evaluation. Other comments: FHWA has been actively engaged in R&D on the use of UHPC for a number of years. The work to date has focused on the fundamental properties of this material and potential applications in real-world situations (e.g., characterization of the material with respect to strength, durability, constructability). Emphasis in the SAFETEA-LU program is now on developing structural components and systems that optimize the application of UHPC, which is cur- rently several times more expensive than the concrete typically used in highway construction. Higher-Performing Steel (HPS) Bridge R&T Transfer Program Funding level: About $3.4 million annually, FY 2006–2009. Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: The HPS Program addresses the full innovation life cycle, from concept through deployment. The program includes agenda setting (identification of national needs and priorities), fundamental research, applied (gap-filling) research, and technol- ogy transfer and deployment. A multiyear RD&T roadmap addressing each of these areas has been developed and is being carried out. The projects in this program are very diverse—from research on basic steel chemistry to develop an economically viable corrosion-resistant steel (fundamental research); to the development of prefabricated steel bridge systems and details (highly applied research); to the devel- opment of design manuals and National Highway Institute training courses and the conduct of field showcases (deployment, education, and training). Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: The HPS Program directly addresses nationally significant topics and encourages efficient use of federal funds by states and local governments. The focus of the program, as with the HPC and UHPC Programs, is on developing innovative practices, materials, components, and systems; improv- ing knowledge and technology; accelerating fabrication and con- struction; improving durability and reducing long-term maintenance;

OCR for page 149
160 The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses employing technology transfer to accelerate implementation; and forming TWGs. Principle No. 3: Content: The HPS Program directly addresses fundamen- tal research, significant highway research gaps, and emerging issues. Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: The overall multiyear RD&T roadmap was developed with significant stakeholder input and is being guided by a TWG comprising representatives of states, industry, and acade- mia. The TWG is providing guidance and review of technical con- tent during the course of the program and will assist in championing the program’s products. Principle No. 5: Competition and merit review: About half of the work is being done in-house at FHWA facilities by FHWA and contract staff, and half is being awarded competitively via formal RFPs. For exam- ple, the corrosion-resistant steel project was initiated via a Broad Agency Announcement, in which concept proposals for how to achieve the project objectives were solicited. Two organizations were selected and funded for preliminary proof-of-concept studies. Principle No. 6: Performance review and evaluation: The HPS TWG is playing an ongoing role in process and performance reviews. The results of FHWA RD&T projects are also subjected to independent review, usually by representatives of end-user groups, as well as through review of papers submitted to peer-reviewed journals. Other comments: None. Steel Bridge Testing Program Funding level: About $1 million annually, FY 2006–2009. Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: The program is focused on develop- ing improvements in existing steel nondestructive evaluation/testing (NDE) technologies, as well as soliciting innovative approaches and new technologies that may provide significantly more information for decision making. A major component of the program in FY 2008 and 2009 will be the development and deployment of manuals and demonstrations on the effective use of these technologies. Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: This program directly supports the federal role in ensuring the safety of the nation’s high- way system by providing improved tools and knowledge to support the National Bridge Inspection Standards.

OCR for page 149
Conformity of Individual Programs with SAFETEA-LU Principles 161 Principle No. 3: Content: The program directly addresses significant high- way research needs, gaps, and emerging issues and encompasses research, development, and education and training. Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: Stakeholders have provided input into the program and are assisting in defining required NDE standards. Stakeholders will also be key contributors to deployment activities in the later years of the program. Principle No. 5: Competition and merit review: The Steel Bridge Testing Program has two components: improving existing tools and tech- nologies, and identifying and developing new approaches. Both components are being conducted through a full and open competi- tive process. The results of the program will be reviewed by stake- holder groups and technical experts. Principle No. 6: Performance review and evaluation: As with other pro- grams, FHWA is working closely with stakeholder groups, such as the AASHTO Bridge Committee, to review program results and help ensure that the NDE technologies being promoted through the pro- gram can be used immediately in the field. Other comments: The Steel Bridge Testing Program was designated by Congress but would not have been considered a high priority by FHWA in comparison with other critical issues and end-user needs. The focus is on improving the technology used for identifying fatigue cracks in steel bridges through NDE techniques, but the current state of technology and practice at the state level, when applied correctly, is considered effective by FHWA. The United States does not build many steel bridges today, and the available funding will have little impact. Seismic Research Program Funding level: About $2 million annually, FY 2006–2009. Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: The goal of the Seismic Research Program is to develop and implement cost-effective methods for reducing vulnerabilities and economic losses through the conduct of seismic research. Upgrades to earthquake simulation facilities will be made, as necessary, to carry out the program. Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: The topic of seismic research is of national significance, but because there are no dis- cretionary RD&E funds, FHWA is using this earmarked program

OCR for page 149
162 The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses to address national needs and priorities that cannot otherwise be undertaken. Principle No. 3: Content: The Seismic Research Program is focused on increasing the resilience of bridges and reducing earthquake-induced losses due to highway damage. The purpose of the program is to study the vulnerability of the federal-aid system and other surface trans- portation systems to seismic activity, to develop and implement cost- effective methods for reducing that vulnerability, and to upgrade earthquake simulation facilities as necessary to carry out the program. Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: The University of Nevada carries out seismic research in cooperation with the National Center for Earth- quake Engineering Research at the University of Buffalo. They work with stakeholders to implement the developed methodologies and technologies. Both institutions are creating advisory groups to help guide the conduct of the program. These groups will comprise rep- resentatives from the federal and state governments, industry, and academia. Principle No. 5: Competition and merit review: There is no competition for research conducted through earmarked programs, and thus the Seismic Research Program does not comply with this principle. Principle No. 6: Performance review and evaluation: This earmarked pro- gram complies with the principle of performance review and evalu- ation through normal FHWA practice. Other comments: None. Polymer–Wood Composite Research Program Funding level: About $750,000 annually, FY 2006–2007. Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: The focus of the Polymer–Wood Composite Research Program is on basic research aimed at the development of a wood–fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite material that can be used as structural lumber in bridges and other structures. The program is expected to result in the development of a tested and validated structural material, but limited technology transfer is included in the current work plan. Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: Title V calls for $1 mil- lion annually to be made available for FY 2006 and 2007 for a demon- stration project addressing this material. This project would not be

OCR for page 149
Conformity of Individual Programs with SAFETEA-LU Principles 163 considered a high-priority need by the FHWA or stakeholder groups, perhaps other than those associated with FRP technology. Principle No. 3: Content: The objective of this program is to conduct research aimed at the development of a composite material com- posed of the equivalent of sawdust and FRP. Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: There is no stakeholder input into the program, other than a limited advisory role by the Maine DOT and the FHWA contracting officer’s technical representative. Principle No. 5: Competition and merit review: This earmarked program does not comply with this principle. Principle No. 6: Performance review and evaluation: This earmarked pro- gram does not comply with this principle. Other comments: This earmarked program is being conducted by the University of Maine. SHRP 2 Renewal Program Funding level: A total of $28.9 million. Principle No. 1: Full innovation cycle: The Renewal Program is applied research designed from a systems perspective to address persistent problems in the length of time required to plan, analyze, design, and finance the replacement of highway infrastructure. Principle No. 2: Justification for federal investment: This program will help states and local governments use federal funding more efficiently. Because of the focus on helping states and local governments to deliver renewed infrastructure more quickly and efficiently and to install facil- ities with less disruption to users and with longer service lives, the research is inherently public-sector in nature and unlikely to be per- formed in the private sector. Principle No. 3: Content: The research is aimed at filling gaps regarding how to renew aging infrastructure through rapid design and con- struction methods that cause minimal disruption and produce long- lived facilities. Principle No. 4: Stakeholder input: SHRP 2 has three levels of stakeholder input. The program is governed by an Oversight Committee made up of senior state DOT officials, contractors, consultants, interest groups, and highway users. Each program area, such as renewal, has a Tech- nical Coordinating Committee (TCC) made up of professionals from

OCR for page 149
164 The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses DOTs, cities and counties, metropolitan planning organizations, con- tractors, consultants, users, and academicians. The RFP for each project is developed by relevant technical experts from diverse back- grounds. Moreover, the overall program design and the detailed research plans for each area were developed with extensive stakeholder input (the policy committee and five National Cooperative Highway Research Program panels, as well as the broader outreach efforts). Principle No. 5: Competition and merit review: All SHRP 2 research is con- ducted through full and open competition, with selection based on recommendations made by the TCCs to the Oversight Committee. Principle No. 6: Performance review and evaluation: Reports will be reviewed by the TCCs, possibly with the assistance of ETGs when reports are highly technical. SHRP 2 as a whole will be reviewed by the Govern- ment Accountability Office. The program as a whole is also constantly monitored by FHWA and AASHTO ex officio members. Other comments: None.