1
Introduction

SHRP 2 overarching theme: Providing outstanding customer service for the 21st century.


SHRP 2 vision: A highway system that actively contributes to improved quality of life for all Americans by providing safe, efficient mobility in an economically, socially, and environmentally responsible manner. (TRB 2001)

The highway system has a pervasive presence in U.S. society. Whether driving, biking, or traveling by bus, many Americans use the nation’s roads every day in their personal, professional, family, and social activities. Many of the goods Americans purchase, from clothing and food to furniture and the latest electronic gadgets, have traveled some distance in a truck on the highway system. The system’s presence and functioning are generally taken for granted, but doing so is becoming increasingly difficult as highway facilities age and the impacts of exceeded designs and suboptimal operation take their toll.

ISSUES FACING THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

The 4-million-mile highway system is the backbone of the U.S. economy, carrying 65 percent of the nation’s $15 trillion in freight traffic (2006 data from FHWA 2008a), while 88 percent of all person miles traveled in the United States occurred in private vehicles in 2001 (Hu and Reuscher 2004). In addition, the highway network provides passenger and freight links to all other modes of transportation. These facilities have been in constant use



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 13
1 Introduction SHRP 2 overarching theme: Providing outstanding customer service for the 21st century. SHRP 2 vision: A highway system that actively contributes to improved quality of life for all Americans by providing safe, efficient mobility in an eco- nomically, socially, and environmentally responsible manner. (TRB 2001) T he highway system has a pervasive presence in U.S. society. Whether driving, biking, or traveling by bus, many Americans use the nation’s roads every day in their personal, professional, family, and social activities. Many of the goods Americans purchase, from clothing and food to furniture and the latest electronic gadgets, have traveled some distance in a truck on the highway system. The system’s presence and functioning are gener- ally taken for granted, but doing so is becoming increasingly difficult as highway facilities age and the impacts of exceeded designs and suboptimal operation take their toll. issues facing the national highway system The 4-million-mile highway system is the backbone of the U.S. economy, carrying 65 percent of the nation’s $15 trillion in freight traffic (2006 data from FHWA 2008a), while 88 percent of all person miles traveled in the United States occurred in private vehicles in 2001 (Hu and Reuscher 2004). In addition, the highway network provides passenger and freight links to all other modes of transportation. These facilities have been in constant use 13

OCR for page 13
14 implementing the results of the second strategic highway research program for decades, often exceeding their original design life and traffic volumes. As a result, the system is deteriorating and heavily congested. The scale of highway renewal needs is suggested by the available national data. Using 1999 obligations, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) (2001) found that resurfacing was being performed on 12.85 percent (20,586 miles) of the National Highway System (NHS) annually, yielding a 7- to 8-year resurfacing cycle for the 160,000-mile system. Reconstruction had been performed on 3,200 miles of roads, implying a 50-year replace- ment cycle and therefore a need for a 50-year roadway, in contrast to the typical design life of 20 years. Furthermore, the average age of bridges in the national inventory is 40 years; 27.5 percent of this inventory is structur- ally deficient or functionally obsolete (FHWA 2004).1 The available data on the impacts of congestion are staggering. In 2005, congestion cost travelers in 437 urban areas 4.2 billion hours and $78 bil- lion and resulted in the waste of 2.9 billion gallons of fuel (TTI 2007, Exhibit B-11, p. B-19). Congestion is being experienced during more hours of the day and is becoming more volatile, increasing travel time unreliability. The additional fuel consumed and idling vehicles contribute to environmental damage. Congestion may make an individual late for work, miss an appoint- ment, or wait a long time for a bus; indeed, it may determine a person’s entire weekday schedule. To the private sector, congestion means higher transportation and logistics costs, fewer deliveries or service calls per day, and wear and tear on employees and vehicle fleets. For truckers who pro- vide just-in-time freight deliveries to manufacturers and other businesses under service-level agreements, the penalties for failing to deliver on time can amount to tens of thousands of dollars. The magnitude of the infrastructure renewal and congestion problem increases significantly when one considers growth predictions for the next 1 These terms are defined as follows by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2004): “Bridges are considered structurally deficient if significant load carrying elements are found to be in poor or worse condition due to deterioration and/or damage, or the adequacy of the waterway opening provided by the bridge is determined to be extremely insufficient to the point of causing intoler- able traffic interruptions” (Chapter 15, at www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2004cpr/chap15c.htm#body). “Functional adequacy is assessed by comparing the existing geometric configurations to current standards and demands. Disparities between the actual and desired configurations are used to determine whether a bridge should be classified as functionally obsolete” (Chapter 3, at www.fhwa. dot.gov/policy/2004cpr/chap3c.htm#body).

OCR for page 13
introduction 15 two decades: the U.S. population is predicted to grow by 24 percent by 2030 (Energy Information Administration 2007, Table A2); vehicle miles trav- eled (VMT) is projected to increase by 60 percent by 2030; truck VMT is projected to increase by 75 percent in the same period (Energy Information Administration 2007, Table 7);2 and truckloads are predicted to increase by 80 percent, to nearly 23 billion tons, by 2035 (FHWA 2007, Table 2-1). This expected growth calls for better system operation and more rapid renewal of in-place infrastructure to optimize the use of existing capacity and improve travel time reliability. There will be a need for additional highway capacity in selected locations to move motorists and freight, as well as additional capacity in public transit, freight rail, and waterborne transportation. One estimate indicates that an additional 173,000 lane miles of Interstate high- way will be needed by 2035 just to maintain the current level of highway performance (PB Consult et al. 2007). This estimate, which assumes high levels of investment in transit and passenger rail during the period, implies adding more than 5,700 lane miles of Interstate highway annually for the next 30 years—nearly comparable with the rate of expansion during the Interstate construction years. About half of the forecast need consists of expansion of existing Interstates, and half consists of upgrades of NHS seg- ments to Interstate standards. Any capacity enhancements will have to be performance driven and outcome based while integrating environmental, economic, and community requirements. Growth in highway usage has safety implications as well. Some 43,000 deaths and millions of injuries occur on the nation’s roads every year, and motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for those between the ages of 5 and 34 (CDC 2007). Beyond the personal toll, highway crashes are estimated to cost the nation $230 billion annually (Blincoe et al. 2002).3 Despite significant improvements in recent decades,4 several 2 More recent data show VMT falling; for example, VMT in March 2008 was 4.3 percent lower than that in March 2007 (cf. FHWA 2008b). The long-term impact on VMT and VMT projections is not yet clear. 3 A study sponsored by the American Automobile Association found that fatal and injury crashes cost $162.2 billion in 85 urban areas in 2005, nearly 2.5 times more than the estimated cost of congestion in those areas (Cambridge Systematics and Meyer 2008). 4 Between 1970 and 2003, the U.S. highway fatality rate—in terms of fatalities per 100 million VMT—declined by 80 percent (Seiffert 2005). If crash rates were the same now as they were in 1966, the annual number of highway fatalities would be 150,000. Improvements are attributable

OCR for page 13
16 implementing the results of the second strategic highway research program factors combine to make highway safety a continuing public health chal- lenge. First, the number of fatalities and the fatality rate per million VMT appear to be leveling off after years of decline. Second, an increase in VMT means more exposure to highway crashes. Third, an aging population means more drivers will exhibit age-related cognitive and physical limita- tions and increased vulnerability to injury. As drivers age, their collision involvement rate and the likelihood of their experiencing a fatal or serious injury in a collision increase. If all else remains constant, the age shift in the U.S. population between now and 2030 can be expected to result in an increase in the number of fatal and serious injury collisions. Finally, in-vehicle technologies and drivers’ use of non-vehicle-related communica- tion devices could lead to greater driver workload and provide more sources of distraction. In many respects, the improvements in highway safety seen during the past several decades have been achieved through rather easily implemented strategies, and continuing declines in both fatality rates and numbers of deaths are becoming increasingly difficult to attain. Innovative approaches to safety countermeasures are necessary for continued progress in road safety performance. Highway and safety professionals implement safety countermeasures across the spectrum of engineering, education, enforcement, and emer- gency medical services—the “4 E’s” of safety. While such efforts are producing continuing improvements in vehicle and roadway design, enforcement, and education, safety professionals are increasingly con- vinced that substantial future advances in highway safety must be based on a better understanding of the most critical and least understood component of the driving system—the driver. An improved understanding is essential not just for behavior-oriented countermeasures, such as safety belt use and impaired driving enforcement, but also for the development of roadway and vehicle countermeasures that can affect driver performance so that crashes are avoided or reduced in severity. to several sources, including vehicle design (air bags, antilock brakes), highway designs and traffic engineering (breakaway signposts, improved intersection designs, better guardrails, better reflectiv- ity of signs and pavement markings), and legislative and enforcement strategies coupled with public education (graduated licensing for young drivers, radar speed enforcement).

OCR for page 13
introduction 17 role of research and innovation Research and innovation have an important role to play in addressing the issues and concerns associated with the building, maintenance, operation, and use of the highway system. In addition to ongoing research programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation, state departments of transportation (DOTs), the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), universities, and private firms, strategic research programs have focused on particular critical needs. The American Association of State Highway Officials5 Road Test, conducted in the late 1950s, addressed the need for nationwide design standards for the nascent Interstate highway system. In the 1980s, the first Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 16) was proposed and conducted to address needs of that time in the areas of asphalt pavements, structural concrete, and winter maintenance. SHRP 1 was a short-term, highly focused research program. Recommended in a study by TRB (1984), SHRP 1 was authorized in 1987 in the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Act. The program received approximately $150 mil- lion over 5 years and was administered by a specially created unit of the National Research Council (NRC). The original research plan included six focus areas (later consolidated to four): • Asphalt, • Long-term pavement performance, • Maintenance cost-effectiveness, • Protection of concrete bridge components, • Cement and concrete in highway pavements and structures, and • Chemical control of snow and ice on highways. In 1991, Congress authorized additional funds to support SHRP 1 imple- mentation. The methods and results of SHRP 1 implementation, as well as principles derived from that experience, are discussed in Chapter 2. 5 In 1973, the organization’s name was changed to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials as state DOTs increasingly assumed broader transportation responsibilities. 6 The first Strategic Highway Research Program was known as SHRP; it is referred to as SHRP 1 or the first SHRP in this report to distinguish it from the second Strategic Highway Research Pro- gram (SHRP 2).

OCR for page 13
18 implementing the results of the second strategic highway research program the second strategic highway research program The success of the first SHRP prompted Congress in 1998 to request a study of whether a new program of a similar short-term, strategic nature was war- ranted.7 TRB carried out this study, which was published in 2001 as Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life (TRB 2001). The report recommended a $450 mil- lion program addressing four strategic focus areas: • Safety: Make a significant improvement in highway safety. The overall goal of this research is to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes through more accurate knowledge of driver behavior and other crash factors. • Renewal: Accelerate the renewal of America’s highways. The overall goal of this research is to develop a consistent, systematic approach to per- forming highway renewal that is rapid, causes minimum disruption, and produces long-lived facilities. • Reliability: Provide a highway system with reliable travel times. The overall goal of this research is to provide highway users with reliable travel times by preventing and reducing the impact of nonrecurring incidents. • Capacity: Provide highway capacity in support of the nation’s economic, environmental, and social goals. The overall goal of this research is to develop approaches and tools for systematically integrating environmental, economic, and community requirements into the analysis, planning, and design of new highway capacity. The four focus areas are interrelated, yet each emphasizes a particular set of research objectives, which together advance the overarching theme of SHRP 2: providing outstanding customer service for the 21st century. For example, Reliability and Capacity both address highway capacity, but from two different perspectives: Reliability focuses on increasing the effective capacity available on existing roadways by managing incidents to improve travel time reliability; Capacity focuses on providing new capacity, where appropriate, in a manner that addresses environmental and community issues. Renewal is also connected to Reliability: while Reliability looks at 7 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 105-178, Section 5112, “Study of a Future Strategic Highway Research Program.”

OCR for page 13
introduction 19 management, planning, and analytical approaches that can be used by a transportation agency to reduce the impacts on travel time reliability due to a wide variety of potentially disruptive events, Renewal focuses on one kind of event—work zones—and specifically addresses how the construc- tion aspect of the work can be planned and executed to reduce disruption. Improvements in highway safety resulting from SHRP 2 Safety research will also reduce disruption from highway crashes. These focus areas were developed through almost 3 years of study and consultation with a broad array of stakeholders to ensure that the most criti- cal needs would be addressed. As reflected in the overarching theme of providing outstanding customer service for the 21st century, the committee that authored Special Report 260 focused on goals that were meaningful to highway users, such as increasing safety, reducing congestion, minimizing disruption to users when roads are being rehabilitated, and providing new capacity that enhances neighborhoods and avoids environmental harm. This approach contrasts somewhat with that of the first SHRP, which emphasized the reduced costs and increased efficiency that highway agencies would realize from implementing the program’s results. Another salient charac- teristic of SHRP 2 is that it is focused more on changing the way highway agencies do business than on producing a number of technology products. Changing institutions and processes is risky, especially in the public sec- tor. SHRP 2 will produce methods and guidance, as well as technologies, designed to help agencies make the changes necessary to better serve their customers while managing the risk involved with institutional change. The products of SHRP 2 research, if widely implemented, have many potential beneficiaries, including those listed in Box 1-1. Interim Planning The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) endorsed the recommendations of Special Report 260 and pro- posed to Congress that the program be funded at the recommended level with funds authorized for the federal-aid highway program. In the mean- time, the state DOTs, through NCHRP, and the Federal Highway Adminis- tration (FHWA) funded the development of detailed research plans for each of the four focus areas. These plans were made available on TRB’s website, and a summary was published as NCHRP Report 510: Interim Planning for a

OCR for page 13
20 implementing the results of the second strategic highway research program Box 1-1 potential beneficiaries of shrp 2 research products • Taxpayers • Motorists • Commercial drivers • Bus riders • Shipping and logistics professionals • Environmental agencies • Communities, businesses, and owners of event venues served by the highway system • Railroads • Utilities • Automobile manufacturers and suppliers • Metropolitan planning organizations • Law enforcement • Firefighters • Emergency medical services • Highway designers, contractors, and suppliers • State and local transportation agencies Future Strategic Highway Research Program: Summary Report (TRB 2003).8 The report envisioned a program funded at $75 million annually over a 6-year period, starting in federal fiscal year (FY) 2004 (October 2003). It also cited a recommendation from AASHTO that the program be adminis- tered by TRB under a three-tiered stakeholder governance structure. Authorization On August 10, 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transporta- tion Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law. Section 5210 of the act authorized a “future strategic highway research program” at a nominal level of $51.25 million annually over 4 years (FY 2006–2009), for a total of $205 million. The four research focus areas rec- ommended in Special Report 260 and developed in NCHRP Report 510 were 8 The original research plans are still available at www.trb.org/shrp2/SHRPII_Background.asp.

OCR for page 13
introduction 21 specified as the content of the research program.9 The actual appropria- tions for SHRP 2 are anticipated to total approximately $170 million over 4 years,10 or less than 40 percent of the amount estimated as necessary to carry out the plans proposed in NCHRP Report 510. Establishment In January 2006, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed by FHWA, AASHTO, and NRC. The MOU established a partnership among the three organizations to carry out SHRP 2 and described the basic gover- nance structure. In March 2006, SHRP 2 was officially inaugurated when funding was made available through a cooperative agreement between FHWA and NRC. The governance structure laid out in the MOU is essentially the three- tiered approach outlined in NCHRP Report 510: • An Oversight Committee is responsible for the overall program. This responsibility includes approving annual work plans, budgets, and contrac- tor awards. • A Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) guides the research under each focus area by developing the annual work plans and monitoring the progress of all contracts in the TCC’s focus area. • Expert Task Groups (ETGs) assist in two ways: some develop requests for proposals (RFPs), review proposals, and make recommendations for award to the Oversight Committee; others (“technical” ETGs) provide expert assis- tance to the TCCs in carrying out their program and project monitoring responsibilities. Each of these groups has members or liaisons, or both, from federal, state, and local government; universities; and the private sector. Most also have international representation to facilitate coordination with research conducted in other countries. The purpose of such an extensive stakeholder governance structure is to ensure that the research remains focused on crit- ical needs; that the best expertise is brought to bear in guiding the program; 9 The focus areas are described in detail in Chapters 2 through 5. 10 The total funding and time frame remained uncertain at the time of this writing.

OCR for page 13
22 implementing the results of the second strategic highway research program and that potential users are involved from the beginning, thereby increas- ing the success of the eventual implementation of research results. As of this writing, nearly 400 individuals have been involved in approximately 40 groups (mainly ETGs). As a result of the 60 percent reduction in the program’s funding and the nearly one-third reduction in its duration,11 the first task of the governance committees was to rescope the program significantly to reflect the new financial and time constraints. The TCCs, in consultation with FHWA staff and with the contractors and volunteers involved in the development of the original research plan, rescoped the plans for the four focus areas using the following process and criteria: 1. The first step was to review current plans to identify – Relevant research completed or initiated since the original plan was developed, – Projects to be deferred until the implementation phase, – Projects out of scale with the budget or the time frame, – Overlapping projects (within SHRP 2), and – Projects duplicative of other initiatives (outside of SHRP 2). 2. This step was followed by an initial revision of plans and budgets, which involved several efforts: – A first draft revision by the contractors that had prepared the origi- nal plans, – Detailed literature searches by staff to identify related or possibly duplicative research, – Consultation with FHWA to identify related or possibly duplicative research, and – Solicitation of feedback from selected experts and stakeholders. 3. On the basis of the additional information thus gathered, the original contractors prepared new, detailed rescoping options, with justifica- tion for the changes. 4. These detailed drafts were distributed to the TCCs for review. 5. At their initial meetings in early 2006, the TCCs adopted revised research plans. 11 The original program duration assumed 6 years of authorized funding to be spent over 9 years; the actual time frame is determined by 4 years of authorization spent over nearly 7 years.

OCR for page 13
introduction 23 Subsequent modifications have been made, largely in response to out- comes of early tasks in the first set of research projects. While essentially “final” research plans have been adopted by all the TCCs and approved by the SHRP 2 Oversight Committee, an ongoing task of the TCCs is to adjust their plans as necessary in response to research results, funding changes, and other developments to ensure that SHRP 2 research remains rele- vant and focused on its strategic goals. Ongoing coordination with other research programs of FHWA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- istration (NHTSA), NCHRP, state DOTs, universities, and other countries will help avoid unnecessary duplication and leverage the efforts of these other programs. Administration The administration of the program was designed to ensure that SHRP 2 would remain focused on the customer-oriented vision and research goals set forth in Special Report 260. Stakeholder guidance is a principal feature of SHRP 2 administration: the ultimate users of the program’s research prod- ucts are engaged in defining and prioritizing the research and overseeing its conduct toward useful results. Each fall the SHRP 2 TCCs prepare the next year’s work program, which is reviewed and approved by the Oversight Committee and provided to FHWA for concurrence. The annual work plans establish a schedule for two rounds of projects. Typically, RFPs are adver- tised in March and July, with proposals due 6 weeks after advertisement and awards made by the Oversight Committee in June and November. Ongoing oversight of projects in each focus area is carried out by the respec- tive TCC with assistance of the technical ETGs as needed. Semiannual prog- ress reports are provided to the Oversight Committee, FHWA, and TRB’s Executive Committee. A public annual report is also produced. Regular communication about the program is carried out through a num- ber of mechanisms in addition to formal progress reports. Each state DOT and several countries have appointed SHRP 2 coordinators or liaisons who receive periodic updates, as do the AASHTO Board of Directors and several AASHTO committees. Quarterly reports are posted on the SHRP 2 website, where interested parties can also learn about new RFPs; check project sta- tus; and be informed about SHRP 2 activities, such as workshops and sym- posia, in which they can participate. Technical briefs describing each focus

OCR for page 13
24 implementing the results of the second strategic highway research program area are updated every few months, printed for distribution at technical meetings, and posted on the website. SHRP 2 news is also included in TRB’s e-newsletter, which is sent weekly to 32,000 recipients. As research results are produced, appropriate dissemination mechanisms are considered, including printed or web publication, CD, DVD, or other media. A special series called First Fruits publishes early products and results from projects not yet completed so that outcomes can be made available to potential users as soon as possible. Implementation The original plan for SHRP 2 integrated some implementation-related activities into the originally proposed $450 million research program. These activities included identification of potential users, dissemination of research findings, testing and evaluation, demonstration projects, confer- ences, workshops, information clearinghouses, and early training efforts. The reductions in the program’s funding and duration forced the elimina- tion of some of these implementation activities, especially those that were more expensive and time-consuming and would naturally come toward the end of the research and development process, such as testing and demon- stration projects. The inclusion in SAFETEA-LU of a requirement to submit the present report on SHRP 2 implementation suggests that Congress is aware of the need to provide additional time and money to support the implementation of SHRP 2 results, if they so merit. This was the committee’s operating assumption and drove the committees’ approach to fulfilling its charge. study approach The first step in the approach to this study was to ascertain what promis- ing results, if any, SHRP 2 could be expected to produce. Doing so posed a challenge for the committee because the first SHRP 2 research contracts were signed less than a year before the committee began its work. Although a number of interim reports and provisional results have been produced to date, no final product is ready for use. Nevertheless, the report’s due date necessitated an early start, so the committee used several mechanisms to identify prospective SHRP 2 products and ascertain their potential useful-

OCR for page 13
introduction 25 ness. At the committee’s first meeting, a representative of each TCC and corresponding SHRP 2 staff presented an overview of their respective focus area and its expected outcomes. The committee questioned them about potential users, possible incentives and impediments (including persons or institutions that might resist implementation), and effective implementa- tion methods. The committee also invited representatives from key stake- holder groups—state DOTs, county transportation agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, construction and materials suppliers, engineering design firms, universities, and technology transfer agents—to comment on the potential usefulness of anticipated SHRP 2 products and methods of implementation and technology transfer preferred by their constituencies. In addition, the committee requested that each TCC dedicate a portion of its spring 2008 meeting to discussing the issues to be addressed in this report—promising results; potential users; implementation incentives, impediments, costs, and mechanisms—and to provide the committee with results of their deliberations. Addressing institutional issues is a major aspect of successful imple- mentation and a specific component of the congressional request for this report. Therefore, the committee worked with FHWA, NHTSA, and AASHTO12 to study potential options for structuring SHRP 2 implementa- tion. As described in Chapter 2, AASHTO and FHWA played major roles in the implementation of the first SHRP, so the committee asked these two organizations to assess that experience, to consider the similarities and dif- ferences between SHRP 1 and SHRP 2, and to propose how each organiza- tion might contribute to SHRP 2 implementation. A significant outcome of SHRP 2 will be safety-related data of unprecedented scale and scope. NHTSA’s experience in administering safety data that are used by research- ers and practitioners nationwide makes that agency uniquely suited to assist the committee in this area. FHWA conducted an agencywide workshop, with participation from AASHTO and NHTSA, and developed principles and a proposed institutional structure to support SHRP 2 implementation. The results of this effort were presented and discussed at the committee’s June 2008 meeting. 12 Section 5210 of SAFETEA-LU specifically requires TRB to consult with these three organizations, each of which appointed a liaison to the committee.

OCR for page 13
26 implementing the results of the second strategic highway research program organization of the report In Chapters 2 through 5, each research focus area within SHRP 2—Safety, Renewal, Reliability, and Capacity—is examined with respect to the fol- lowing issues: promising research results; potential users, incentives, and impediments; implementation requirements; and appropriate implemen- tation methods and activities. Chapter 6 outlines a set of implementation principles and key strategies for SHRP 2 based on experience with imple- mentation of the first SHRP. Chapter 7 applies the implementation prin- ciples and key strategies set forth in Chapter 6 to formulate a programwide approach to SHRP 2 implementation. Finally, the committee’s recommen- dations for implementation activities, institutional mechanisms, and fund- ing are presented in Chapter 8. references Abbreviations CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention FHWA Federal Highway Administration TRB Transportation Research Board TTI Texas Transportation Institute Blincoe, L., A. Seay, E. Zaloshnja, T. Miller, E. Romano, S. Luchter, and R. Spicer. 2002. The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000. NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 809 446. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and M. D. Meyer. 2008. Crashes vs. Congestion—What’s the Cost to Society? www.aaanewsroom.net/Assets/Files/200835920140.CrashesVs CongestionExecutiveSummary2.28.08.pdf. CDC. 2007. 10 Leading Causes of Injury Deaths, United States, 2004, All Races, Both Sexes. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html. Accessed Oct. 6, 2007. Energy Information Administration. 2007. Annual Energy Outlook Report. DOE/EIA-0383 (2007). http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/0383(2007).pdf. FHWA. 2004. Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 2004 Conditions and Performance. www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2004cpr/execsum.htm. FHWA. 2007. Freight Facts and Figures 2007. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/ nat_freight_stats/docs/07factsfigures/index.htm. FHWA. 2008a. Our Nation’s Highways 2008. Publication No. FHWA-PL-08-021. www. fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/pl08021/index.cfm.

OCR for page 13
introduction 27 FHWA. 2008b. Traffic Volume Trends. www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/tvtpage.cfm. Hu, P. S., and T. R. Reuscher. 2004. Summary of Travel Trends: 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., Dec. http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf. PB Consult, Inc., Cambridge Systematics, Inc., A. E. Pisarski, and K. E. Heanue. 2007. Future Options for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Final report, NCHRP Project 20-24(52)—Task 10. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trbnet/acl/ NCHRP_20-24_52Task10_NCHRPFinal.pdf. Seiffert, U. 2005. The Evolution of Automobile Safety from Experimental to Enhanced Safety Vehicles: A Look at Over 30 Years of Progress—Future Research Directions for Enhancing Safety. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., June 6. http://www-nrd. nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-01/esv/19th/Discussions/Seiffert_19thESV2005.pdf# search=%22esv%20conference%202005%22). TRB. 1984. Special Report 202: America’s Highways: Accelerating the Search for Innovation. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. TRB. 2001. Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Conges- tion, Improving Quality of Life. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. TRB. 2003. NCHRP Report 510: Summary Report: Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program. National Academies, Washington, D.C. TTI. 2007. 2007 Urban Mobility Report. http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/.