SPECIAL REPORT 296

Implementing the Results of the Second Strategic Highway Research Program

Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life

COMMITTEE FOR THE STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM 2: IMPLEMENTATION

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Transportation Research Board

Washington, D.C.

2009
www.TRB.org



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 R1
special report 296 Implementing the Results of the Second Strategic Highway Research Program Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life committee for the strategic highway research program 2: implementation Transportation Research Board Washington, D.C. 2009 www.TRB.org

OCR for page R1
Transportation Research Board Special Report 296 Subscriber Categories IA planning and administration IB energy and environment II design IIIB materials and construction IV operations and safety 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. Affili- ates 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 2009 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 Sci- ences, 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. Cover and inside design by Beth Schlenoff, Beth Schlenoff Design. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board. Committee for the Strategic Highway Research Program 2: Implementation. Implementing the results of the second Strategic Highway Research Program : saving lives, reducing congestion, improving quality of life / Committee for the Strategic Highway Research Program 2: Implementation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. p. cm.—(Special report ; 296) 1. Traffic safety—United States. 2. Highway research—United States. 3. Traffic congestion—United States. 4. Strategic Highway Research Program (U.S.) I. Title. HE5614.2.N28 2009 388.1220973—dc22 2009000522 ISBN 978-0-309-12606-9

OCR for page R1
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 Sci- ences 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 Coun- cil. 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 inter- est. 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 R1

OCR for page R1
Committee for the Strategic Highway Research Program 2: Implementation Kirk T. Steudle, Chair, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing Forrest M. Council, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill C. Douglass Couto, Citrix Systems, Inc., East Lansing, Michigan Thomas B. Deen, Consultant, Stevensville, Maryland Joel P. Ettinger, New York Metropolitan Transportation Council David R. Gehr, PB Americas, Inc., Herndon, Virginia Robert C. Johns, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Robert C. Lange, General Motors Corporation, Warren, Michigan Sandra Q. Larson, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames Ananth K. Prasad, HNTB Corporation, Tallahassee, Florida Mary Lou Ralls, Ralls Newman, LLC, Austin, Texas Mary Lynn Tischer, Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond John P. Wolf, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento Liaison Representatives Anthony R. Kane, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Ronald Medford, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Michael F. Trentacoste, Federal Highway Administration Transportation Research Board Staff Ann M. Brach, Deputy Director, Strategic Highway Research Program 2, Study Director Stephen J. Andrle, Chief Program Officer Walter J. Diewald, Senior Program Officer Pat Williams, Administrative Assistant

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface I n July 2005, the United States Congress passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). This bill, which reauthorized the federal-aid highway program, established the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is currently being managed by the National Research Council’s Transportation Research Board (TRB). SAFETEA-LU also called for TRB to “complete a report on the strategies and administrative struc- ture to be used for implementation of the results” of SHRP 2. The congres- sionally mandated report, due to Congress no later than February 1, 2009, was to include the following: (A) an identification of the most promising results of research under the program (including the persons most likely to use the results); (B) a discus- sion of potential incentives for, impediments to, and methods of, imple- menting those results; (C) an estimate of costs of implementation of those results; and (D) recommendations on methods by which implementation of those results should be conducted, coordinated, and supported in future years, including a discussion of the administrative structure and organiza- tion best suited to carry out those recommendations. . . . in developing the report, the Transportation Research Board shall consult with a wide vari- ety of stakeholders, including (A) the Federal Highway Administration; (B) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; and (C) the Ameri- can Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.1 To carry out this congressional request, TRB established a committee of leaders from the highway community, chaired by Kirk T. Steudle, Director of the Michigan Department of Transportation. The primary task of the 1 SAFETEA-LU, Public Law 109-59, Section 5210, “Future Strategic Highway Research Program.” The bill was signed into law on August 10, 2005. vii

OCR for page R1
viii implementing the results of the second strategic highway research program Committee for the Strategic Highway Research Program 2: Implementa- tion was to recommend approaches to implementing the results of SHRP 2 research;2 therefore, the committee members were chosen for their dem- onstrated knowledge of the program, their expertise in research manage- ment and implementation, and their ability to represent major potential user groups. Brief biographies of the committee members are given at the end of this report. The committee also benefited from the contributions of liaisons from the American Association of State Highway and Transpor- tation Officials, the Federal Highway Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, who coordinated the committee’s work with their organizations and facilitated outreach to their colleagues throughout the study. The due date for this report was set as February 1, 2009, at a time when it was believed that SHRP 2 would be authorized in October 2003. In the end, the legislation did not pass until August 2005, and the funding for the program did not become available until March 2006; thus the program began more than 2 years later than originally planned. Requests for propos- als for the first set of research projects were advertised in July 2006, and researchers were chosen by the end of the year. The first contracts were signed in February 2007, and this committee began its work in December of that year. Although a number of interim reports and provisional results have been produced to date, no final product is actually ready for use. None- theless, the due date for this implementation report remained the same so that Congress would have the report in hand when it developed the next surface transportation authorization (due in October 2009). If the report had been submitted later, Congress would not have had the opportunity to act on its recommendations. The committee conducted three meetings, in December 2007 and in June and October 2008, and a conference call in March 2008. The study was carried out in close cooperation with the SHRP 2 Oversight Commit- tee and the four Technical Coordinating Committees (TCCs) that oversee the research being conducted in the four SHRP 2 focus areas. Two mem- bers of the Oversight Committee and one member from each of the TCCs 2 The scope of the committee’s task did not include commenting on the content of the research program.

OCR for page R1
preface ix served on the report committee. Rosters of the Oversight Committee and the TCCs are provided in Appendix A. The study was conducted under the overall supervision of Ann M. Brach, Deputy Director of SHRP 2. Portions of the report were written by Dr. Brach, Neil Hawks, Walter Diewald, Stephen Andrle, and James Bryant under the direction of the committee. Patricia Williams provided administrative support. 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 will assist the institution in making its 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 review comments and draft manuscript remain confi- dential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. Appreciation is expressed to the following individuals for their review of this report: E. Dean Carlson, Carlson Associates, Topeka, Kansas; A. Ray Chamberlain, Fort Collins, Colorado; Irwin Feller, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.; Ann Flemer, Metro- politan Transportation Commission, Oakland, California; Gary Hoff- man, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; John M. Mason, Jr., Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama; and Thomas B. Sheridan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (emeritus), Newton. Although these reviewers provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the report’s findings and conclusions, nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by William Agnew, General Motors Corporation (retired), and H. Gerard Schwartz, St. Louis, Mis- souri. Appointed by NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this 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. Suzanne Schneider, Associate Executive Director of TRB, managed the report review process. Rona Briere edited the report, and Alisa Decatur

OCR for page R1
x implementing the results of the second strategic highway research program provided word processing support for preparing the final manuscript. In the TRB Publications Office, Jennifer J. Weeks formatted the prepublica- tion edition for posting to the TRB website; Norman Solomon provided final editorial guidance; and Juanita Green managed the book design and production, under the supervision of Javy Awan, Director of Publications.

OCR for page R1
Acronyms AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CDMF Collaborative Decision-Making Framework CSS context-sensitive solutions DOT department of transportation EMS emergency medical services ETG Expert Task Group FHWA Federal Highway Administration FOT field operational test FY fiscal year GPS Global Positioning System HCM Highway Capacity Manual HOT high-occupancy toll IDEA Ideas Deserving Exploratory Analysis IRB institutional review board IT information technology ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers KDP key decision point LTAP Local Technical Assistance Program LTPP Long-Term Pavement Performance MOU memorandum of understanding MPO metropolitan planning organization NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NDE nondestructive evaluation NDS naturalistic driving study xi

OCR for page R1
xii implementing the results of the second strategic highway research program NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHI National Highway Institute NHS National Highway System NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RFP request for proposals ROW right-of-way SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SHRP, SHRP 1 First Strategic Highway Research Program SHRP 2 Second Strategic Highway Research Program SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan TCC Technical Coordinating Committee TIG Technology Implementation Group TRB Transportation Research Board TTR travel time reliability USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation UTC University Transportation Center VMT vehicle miles traveled

OCR for page R1
Contents Summary ......................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 13 Issues Facing the National Highway System ............................................ 13 Role of Research and Innovation .............................................................17 The Second Strategic Highway Research Program ...................................18 Study Approach ...................................................................................... 24 Organization of the Report ..................................................................... 26 2 Safety Focus Area..............................................................................28 SHRP 2 Safety Research ......................................................................... 30 Promising Products, and Potential Users, Incentives, and Barriers ...........32 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 42 3 Renewal Focus Area ..........................................................................45 SHRP 2 Renewal Research ......................................................................45 Promising Products, and Potential Users, Incentives, and Barriers .......... 50 Conclusion ..............................................................................................58 4 Reliability Focus Area ...................................................................... 60 SHRP 2 Reliability Research ....................................................................61 Promising Products, and Potential Users, Incentives, and Barriers .......... 64 Conclusion ..............................................................................................75 5 Capacity Focus Area .......................................................................... 77 SHRP 2 Capacity Research ......................................................................77 Promising Products, and Potential Users, Incentives, and Barriers .......... 79 Conclusion ..............................................................................................93

OCR for page R1
6 Implementation of SHRP 2: Principles and Key Strategies................94 Innovation in the Highway Industry: Challenges and Opportunities....... 94 Lessons Learned from the Original SHRP ............................................... 99 Principles for SHRP 2 Implementation..................................................107 Key Implementation Strategies...............................................................111 7 Implementation Approach for SHRP 2 ............................................117 Principal Implementation Agent: Attributes and Activities .................... 117 Key Implementation Strategies Applied to SHRP 2 Focus Areas ............ 121 Financial Resources............................................................................... 137 8 Recommendations .......................................................................... 142 Appendices A SHRP 2 Committee Rosters ............................................................ 148 B SHRP 2 Projects and Expected Products ......................................... 154 Study Committee Biographical Information ..............................................163