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 R1
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
SPECIAL REPORT 295
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009
Strengths and Weaknesses
Research and Technology Coordinating Committee
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Transportation Research Board
Washington, D.C.
2008
www.TRB.org
OCR for page R2
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
Transportation Research Board Special Report 295
Subscriber Category
I planning, administration, and environment
Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.TRB.org or national-academies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the
Transportation Research Board Business Office,
500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu).
Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
This study was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The federal investment in highway research 2006–2009 : strengths and weaknesses / Research and Technology Coordinating Committee.
p. cm.—(Transportation Research Board special report ; 295) 1. Highway research—United States. I. Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (U.S.) II. National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board.
TE192.F42 2008
354.77’2742460973—dc22
2008048473
ISBN 978-0-309-12605-2
OCR for page R3
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R5
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
Research and Technology Coordinating Committee
E. Dean Carlson,
Carlson Associates, Topeka, Kansas,
Chair
Frances T. Banerjee,
Banerjee and Associates, San Marino, California
John Conrad,
Washington State Department of Transportation (ret.), Olympia1
Arthur Dinitz,
Transpo-Industries, Inc., New Rochelle, New York
Daniel C. Murray,
American Transportation Research Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Timothy Neuman,
CH2M Hill, Chicago, Illinois
Lawrence H. Orcutt,
California Department of Transportation, Sacramento
Leonard A. Sanderson,
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Raleigh, North Carolina
Constance S. Sorrell,
Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond
Les Sterman,
East–West Gateway Council of Governments, St. Louis, Missouri
Joseph M. Sussman,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
Albert H. Teich,
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.
Paul Wells,
New York State Department of Transportation (ret.), Albany
Kevin Womack,
Utah State University, Logan
Transportation Research Board Staff
Walter Diewald, Senior Program Officer (through June 2006)
Stephen Godwin, Director,
Studies and Special Programs Division,
Study Director
1
During the first 5½ years of his term, Conrad was with the Washington State Department of Transportation. After retiring from that organization in 2008, he joined CH2M Hill.
OCR for page R6
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R7
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
Preface
Since 1992, the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC) has served as an independent advisor on national and federal highway research. Its work over the past 15 years has been supported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). During the years in which it has advised FHWA and other highway research sponsors, the committee has issued a number of reports addressing highway research topics, funding, and research management. It has also issued two previous reports addressing highway research at the national and federal levels.
In Special Report 244: Highway Research: Current Programs and Future Directions (1994), RTCC described and analyzed for the first time the wide range of highway research activities funded through government and industry and made recommendations regarding funding levels for research and development and priority areas for future investment. In 2001, RTCC issued Special Report 261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology. In that report, the committee assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the federal program and made recommendations with respect to funding levels and priorities. In particular, the committee stressed the need for improved stakeholder involvement in the FHWA program and urged that research funding be allocated through merit review of competitively solicited proposals. In both of these reports, RTCC emphasized the importance of allocating a greater share of the federal investment in highway research to longer-term, higher-risk research and made recommendations regarding priority areas for future highway research investment.
In 2007 RTCC’s statement of task was renegotiated with FHWA and was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. It states:
OCR for page R8
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
This project will provide an ongoing review of the FHWA research program. It will also analyze the federal investment in highway research made in the 2005 reauthorization of surface transportation programs and make recommendations to enhance the value of that investment. The criteria to be used for the committee’s analysis will be those articulated by Congress in the eight basic principles for research and technology innovation in Section 5201 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
This report continues RTCC’s tradition of periodically assessing the state of highway research and making recommendations to policy makers. In this report, and consistent with its statement of task, the committee evaluates the investments made in highway research through SAFETEA-LU.
The committee conducted its work over a 3-year period, during which it invited and received briefings from research program managers in FHWA and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), as well as from a broad range of stakeholders in highway research. Appendix A lists the many people who made presentations on and discussed various highway research programs. This report reflects the committee’s analysis of the information gathered and its collective, consensus judgment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project would not have been possible without the cooperation and assistance of many individuals. The committee extends its appreciation and thanks to all the presenters and discussants listed in Appendix A who provided essential information about specific research programs and activities. In particular, the committee thanks staff at FHWA and RITA who facilitated the production of this report. The encouragement and support of Dennis Judycki, Associate Administrator for Research, Development, and Technology at FHWA, was vital to the production of this report. Other staff from the U.S. Department of Transportation who were particularly helpful in preparing presentations and descriptions of their programs include Susan Binder, Nelda Bravo, Debra Elston, Ewa Flom, Ian Friedland, Jack Jernigan, Marci Kenny, David Kuehn, Jeff
OCR for page R9
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
Lindley, Tom Marchessault, Jeff Paniati, Cheryl Richter, Gloria Shepherd, and Felicia Young. Several FHWA staff members—Flom, Friedland, Jernigan, Richter, and Young—were particularly gracious in responding to follow-up questions. Members of the staff of the Strategic Highway Research Program 2, including Neil Hawks, Ann Brach, Walter Diewald, and William Hyman, were also helpful.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that assist the authors and NRC in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The committee thanks the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Robert L. Lytton, Texas A&M University, College Station; Susan Martinovich, Nevada Department of Transportation, Carson City; Michael D. Meyer, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta; Debra L. Miller, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka; Carl L. Monismith, University of California, Berkeley (emeritus); and David E. Newcomb, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, Maryland.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the committee’s conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by C. Michael Walton. Appointed by NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Stephen Godwin, Director of Studies and Special Programs, managed this study and drafted the report under the guidance of the committee. Walter Diewald staffed RTCC from 1991 through the middle of 2006. Diewald, Beverly Huey, and Tom Menzies assisted with various portions
OCR for page R10
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
of the draft report. Suzanne Schneider, Associate Executive Director of the Transportation Research Board, managed the report review process. Special appreciation is expressed to Rona Briere, who edited the report; Alisa Decatur, who prepared the prepublication manuscript; and to Jennifer J. Weeks, who prepared the prepublication files for web posting; Norman Solomon, who provided final editorial guidance; and Juanita Green, who managed the production and printing, under the super vision of Javy Awan, Director of Publications. Amelia Mathis, Laura Toth, and Nikisha Turman assisted with meeting arrangements and communications with committee members.
OCR for page R11
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
Acronyms
3E engineering, enforcement, and education
AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACS adaptive control software
ASR alkali–silica reactivity
BAA Broad Agency Announcement
BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis
BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics
CA4PRS Construction Analysis for Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies
CADD computer-aided drafting and design
CAD-TMC computer-aided dispatch traffic management center
CAFE corporate average fuel economy
CFS Commodity Flow Survey
CICAS Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance System
CLARUS Latin word for clear—a road weather information initiative
CO2 carbon dioxide
CSS context-sensitive solution
DOD Department of Defense
DOT department of transportation
EFM electronic freight management
EMS emergency medical services
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ETG expert task group
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
OCR for page R12
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRP fiber-reinforced polymer
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FY fiscal year
GAO Government Accountability Office
GDP gross domestic product
GHG greenhouse gas emission
GIS geographic information system
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
GPS Global Positioning System
HCC hydraulic cement concrete
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HOT high-occupancy toll (lane)
HPC high-performance concrete
HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System
HPS higher-performing steel
IBRD Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment
IDEA Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis
IDIQ indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (contract)
IHSDM Interactive Highway Safety Design Module
IPRD Innovative Pavement Research and Deployment Program
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
ITS intelligent transportation system
LTAP Local Technical Assistance Program
LTBP Long-Term Bridge Performance (Program)
LTPP Long-Term Pavement Performance (Program)
MCEER Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
MDOT Missouri Department of Transportation
MPO metropolitan planning organization
NADO National Association of Development Organizations
NAPA National Asphalt Pavement Association
NBIS National Bridge Inspection Standards
OCR for page R13
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NDE nondestructive evaluation/testing
NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers’ Association
NHS National Highway System
NHTS National Household Travel Survey
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NGO nongovernmental organization
NIST National Institute for Standards and Technology
NTIMC National Traffic Incident Management Coalition
NTOC National Transportation Operations Coalition
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NRC National Research Council
NSF National Science Foundation
OMB Office of Management and Budget
psi pounds per square inch
QC/QA quality control/quality assurance
R&D research and development
R&T research and technology
RAP reclaimed asphalt pavement
RD&T research, development, and technology
REDARS Risk for Earthquake Damage to Roadway Systems
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
RFP request for proposals
RTCC Research and Technology Coordinating Committee
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program
SP&R State Planning and Research
STEP Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program
STRDD Surface Transportation Research, Development, and Deployment
TBD to be determined
TCC Technical Coordinating Committee
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TELUS Transportation, Economic, and Land Use System
OCR for page R14
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
TFHRC Turner–Fairbank Highway Research Center
TIM Traffic Incident Management
TMIP Travel Model Improvement Program
TRANSIMS Transportation Analysis and Simulation System
TRB Transportation Research Board
TTI Texas Transportation Institute
TWG technical working group
UHPC ultra–high performance concrete
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
UTC University Transportation Center
VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation
VIUS Vehicle Information and Use Survey
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WRI Western Research Institute
OCR for page R15
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
Contents
Summary
1
1
Introduction
7
Background
8
Organization of the Report
13
2
Highway Research Programs in the United States
15
Federal Programs
15
State Programs
20
Private-Sector R&D
23
Comparative R&D Investments
25
Summary
25
3
Highway Research Programs Funded Under Title V
28
Advanced Research
28
Infrastructure Research, Development, and Technology
31
Operations RD&T
43
Planning and Environmental RD&T
55
Safety RD&T
62
Policy Research
68
University Transportation Centers Program
72
OCR for page R16
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses
4
Principles for Highway Research and Technology Investments
80
Eight Principles for Highway Research
80
Six Principles Informing This Assessment
87
5
Assessment of Authorized Programs
89
Advanced Research
89
Infrastructure RD&T
92
Operations RD&T
103
Planning and Environmental RD&T
107
Safety RD&T
114
Policy Research
118
University Transportation Centers Program
121
Summary
125
6
Summary Findings and Recommendations
131
Summary Findings
131
Recommendations
138
Concluding Observations
141
Appendices
A
Presentations and Discussions on Highway Research Programs That Informed This Report
142
B
Research Projects Under the Strategic Highway Research Program 2 as of July 3, 2008
146
C
Conformity of Individual FHWA Infrastructure Research, Development, and Technology Programs with SAFETEA-LU Principles
149
D
SAFETEA-LU University Transportation Research Centers
165
Study Committee Biographical Information
168
