Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

6 Recommendations Innovations in surface transportation are needed to support the economic growth of the United States, strengthen its global competitiveness, and enhance its inhabitants’ quality of life. Successful innovation in the trans- portation sector largely depends on a potent research1 endeavor, one that is productive in building knowledge and devising ways to meet new trans- portation demands, as well as in operating current systems more efficiently and cost-effectively. This research endeavor needs to address the individual components of the systems, notably infrastructure, vehicles, fuels, and users, and the interactions among them. It also needs to provide key play- ers in the nation’s surface transportation enterprise (policy makers, public officials, equipment manufacturers, service providers, planners, engineers, and others) with a robust knowledge base for identifying improvement opportunities and for informing decisions. VALUE OF A NATIONAL RESEARCH FRAMEWORK Nations with which the United States competes place a high priority on improving the performance of their transportation systems in support of social, economic, and environmental goals. These nations also have effective research frameworks in place for this purpose: the scanning study of transportation research program administration in Europe and Asia found strategic and policy-driven frameworks for transportation research to be standard in the countries visited (Elston et al. 2009). The 1 As noted in Chapter 1, the term “research” is used throughout this report as shorthand for research, development, and deployment (RD&D). 113 

114 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future committee’s review of transportation research organizations in Europe and Asia allowed it to identify important features of these frameworks (see Box 4-1). As discussed in Chapter 2, a transportation research framework encom- passes a series of functions, from initial identification of research’s role in achieving desired goals through the implementation of new knowledge in various forms. The execution of these functions is influenced by the research context, which depends on organizational structures, funding mechanisms, and a variety of policies and procedures. For example, even if overall funding levels are adequate for initiating a research project, sci- entific and technological progress may be thwarted if the subsequent flow of funding is sporadic. An effective national research framework with the critical attributes identified in Chapter 2, however, can help ensure that the country’s transportation research enterprise supports overall societal goals. The framework can also guide investment throughout the research process. In contrast to its competitors, the United States lacks a cohesive national framework linking surface transportation research activities to societal goals.2 It relies instead on a fragmented and ad hoc array of diverse and largely uncoordinated research initiatives, often with no clear linkage to overall social, economic, and environmental goals. In other words, the United States lacks the centralized transportation policy making that char- acterizes many of its competitors (see Chapter 4), and national interests and individual well-being suffer in some respects from this omission. An effective U.S. national research framework for surface transportation, one that engaged multiple levels of government; bridged the public and private sectors; and drew on the nation’s research capacity in academia, industry, and elsewhere, would contribute to the country’s economic, societal, and environmental health. Lacking such a framework, current U.S. surface transportation research tends to be organized by mode, funding source, federal government 2 The committee envisions that a national transportation research framework for the United States would ultimately encompass all modes of transportation. To avoid going beyond its charge, how- ever, the committee addressed only surface transportation in this report. It also excluded pipelines, inland waterways, and coastal shipping from its discussions to render its task more tractable with available resources. 

Recommendations 115 department, and other arbitrary groupings, as the examples in Chapter 3 illustrate. This mixed private–public enterprise has served America well for decades, but it has resulted in some missed opportunities, such as the improvement of transportation services through systems-level approaches; the leveraging of different research competencies in support of broad and crosscutting initiatives; and the pooling of funds for research that is of com- mon interest to many organizations but that is too costly to be undertaken by any single organization. A more cohesive framework would place greater emphasis on “the big picture,” identifying research areas of high national priority, possible synergies among research activities, and research gaps. In the judgment of the committee, addressing surface transportation research in a more holistic way could help overcome current deficiencies, notably • A lack of policy making and systems-level analysis needed to support national goals, • Too much attention to incremental improvements and scant atten- tion to the search for new knowledge that might enable wider-ranging and more innovative solutions, and • Insufficient emphasis on coordination of research activities. Through its broad perspective on providing the transportation systems needed to meet national goals, a new framework could better address the diversity and breadth of transportation research. It could also help estab- lish greater networking across the research community, engaging not only those traditionally involved in transportation research but also new play- ers with new ideas. Hence the committee concludes that the United States needs a modern, cohesive, national research framework for surface trans- portation and should deploy, without delay, the mechanisms for build- ing, implementing, and sustaining such a framework. This framework would retain the effective features of current U.S. surface transportation research identified in Chapter 3, namely, the robust portfolio of applied research and the role played by research in educating future transporta- tion professionals. In the remainder of this chapter, the committee presents its recommen- dations for creating the proposed new national research framework for surface transportation. In particular, because the federal government, as 

116 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future a major sponsor of surface transportation research, will have a key role in supporting the new framework, the committee recommends ways of structuring a more productive federal research enterprise in the context of that framework. Given the ubiquitous nature of transportation, the com- mittee also offers recommendations for raising awareness of surface trans- portation research beyond the confines of the transportation research community per se to include decision makers at the national policy level. The committee’s recommendations are intended not only to help the research community move toward a new and more cohesive national framework for surface transportation research, but also to encourage organizations and individuals to think more broadly about opportuni- ties for solving transportation problems. Specific suggestions are made for achieving the desired goals, but recognizing that other opportunities may present themselves, the committee encourages the research com- munity to explore alternative approaches. BUILD AND IMPLEMENT A NEW NATIONAL RESEARCH FRAMEWORK In the committee’s judgment, there is no silver bullet that could rapidly transform the current fragmented and ad hoc national research frame- work for surface transportation into a more cohesive alternative. Rather, a series of steps over a period of years will be needed, both to fully engage a broad spectrum of interested groups and to implement strategies for making more effective use of the nation’s extensive research capabili- ties. Taking the initial steps without delay is essential, given the growing and changing demands on the nation’s transportation systems, the ever- increasing pressure on research budgets, the need to use research funds wisely, and the emphasis placed on transportation research by many U.S. competitors. The steps in the process that the committee envisions are described in the following subsections on leadership, national summit, lead orga- nization, and funding, in the context of the first two of the committee’s nine major recommendations. The sequence of activities is illustrated schematically in Figure 6-1. The connections between the process steps are accomplished through the leadership and organizational structure. 

Recommendations 117 FIGURE 6-1 Steps leading to a new national research framework. Recommendation 1: An initiative to establish a new framework for U.S. surface transportation research should be launched without delay. The Standing Committee on Research (SCOR) of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) should instigate this activity and engage other influential organiza- tions from the public, private, academic, and nonprofit sectors. The resulting leadership group should • Secure funding to support the initiative; • Promote the advantages of a more cohesive research framework to the public, private, academic, and nonprofit sectors; and • Appoint a convener for a national summit, which would use the framework concept to explore effective strategies for addressing major challenges in surface transportation research. Leadership The committee recognizes that an initiative aimed at building and imple- menting a new national framework for surface transportation research faces many obstacles, particularly in the current budget-constrained 

118 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future environment. For example, at present no single organization or research group could effectively serve the multimodal leadership, stewardship, and funding roles that the framework calls for in the future. The committee also is well aware that earlier efforts to establish a more cohesive approach to transportation research have had mixed results. The first Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) proved successful in approaching highway research “from the vantage point of a unified industry” rather than from the individual perspectives of “every state, city, county, and toll highway authority, and thousands of contractors and suppliers” (TRB 1984, v). The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program has from its earliest days engaged representatives from government, academia, and industry (see Chapter 3). However, an attempt by the Federal Transporta- tion Advisory Group3 to establish a cohesive approach to transportation research across the federal government did not lead to greater integration of research activities (FTAG 2001). An important lesson learned from the SHRP and ITS experiences (see Chapter 3) is that the likelihood of success is greatly enhanced when respected leaders from within transportation organizations and the research community commit to and champion an initiative. This lesson is not unique to the United States. The 2008 scanning study of transpor- tation research program administration in Europe and Asia observed that, in a number of host countries, “senior-level individuals frequently emerge as visionaries or champions and play an instrumental role in national program focus and support” (Elston et al. 2009, 2). For the proposed new framework initiative for the United States, the committee recommends an approach similar to that used to launch the ITS program, while recognizing that building a surface transportation research framework in its entirety will be a more challenging endeavor than addressing ITS alone. The first steps toward establishing what was to become ITS America were taken by a core group of volunteer partici- 3 The Federal Transportation Advisory Group was established by the National Science and Technology Council under the auspices of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Aerospace Technology Advisory Committee. Its 24 members represented aerospace, water, land, and multimodal interests and were drawn from the public, private, and academic sectors (FTAG 2001). 

Recommendations 119 pants (i.e., champions), known as Mobility 2000. This group, which rep- resented the public, private, academic, and nonprofit sectors, included, among others, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, the Gen- eral Motors Corporation, the University of Michigan, the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technol- ogy. The group convened a national planning workshop on intelligent vehicle–highway systems (IVHS) in Dallas, Texas, in March 1990 (TTI 1990). The workshop included a broad range of stakeholders and pro- duced a vision, goals, and funding estimates for a national program that was clearly linked to national transportation goals. The Mobil- ity 2000 group was disbanded after the workshop, and the nonprofit corporation IVHS America (subsequently ITS America) was formed. In 1991, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) issued a special report addressing the overall objectives for a national IVHS initiative and methods for effectively managing such a program (TRB 1991). The committee envisions a similar group of respected and influen- tial leaders from within the current surface transportation commu- nity initiating the effort to build a new research framework for surface transportation. Like the Mobility 2000 group that championed the national IVHS initiative, this cadre of volunteer leaders (“the leader- ship group”) would represent the public, private, academic, and non- profit sectors. It would market the potential advantages of a cohesive research framework to these sectors and raise funds for a national sur- face transportation summit analogous to the 1990 IVHS workshop. And like the Mobility 2000 group, this leadership group would disband once its work was done. The leadership group itself will need an institutional leader. The committee recommends AASHTO’s SCOR for this role, for three main reasons: • SCOR has a strong interest in alternative frameworks and institu- tional models with the potential to enhance surface transportation in the United States, as reflected in its decision to commission and fund the current study; • SCOR’s role as AASHTO’s “driving force for high-quality transpor- tation research and innovation to improve the nation’s mobility of 

120 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future people and goods”4 aligns with the broad objectives of the new research framework; and • SCOR’s experience in working with federal, industrial, academic, and nonprofit partners, notably through the National Cooperative High- way Research Program (NCHRP), demonstrates that the organization is well positioned to engage a broad spectrum of interest groups in the new framework initiative. Moreover, because it represents depart- ments of transportation (DOTs) in all 50 states, SCOR’s influence extends nationwide. The committee considered the possibility of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) leading the core group of framework cham- pions, but decided against recommending this option for two reasons: the U.S. DOT’s lack of a strong, departmentwide research culture (see Chapter 3) and the department’s role in setting national policy. In the committee’s judgment, the leader of the core group needs to have not only a strong commitment to research but also the ability to provide a neutral forum for discussion independent of administration policy. National Summit The committee recommends holding a national summit on transporta- tion research to launch efforts to build and implement a new national research framework. The summit’s starting point would be to review the major research challenges that need to be addressed if surface trans- portation is to continue supporting progress toward societal goals for economic development, sustainability, and quality of life. The summit’s overarching objective would be to foster the blend of diverse interests, the informal working relationships, and the commitment to common objec- tives that characterized the launch of the IVHS initiative (TTI 1990). Toward this end, the summit would engage a broad range of interested parties, including representatives from entities outside the traditional transportation research community, such as the information technology and communications industries. Preparatory work in advance of the summit would synthesize lessons learned from earlier efforts to identify major challenges facing surface 4 http://research.transportation.org/Pages/AboutSCORandRAC.aspx. 

Recommendations 121 transportation research. For example, the Vision 2050 report, although over 10 years old, provides useful suggestions for research areas that could dramatically transform transportation in the future (FTAG 2001). TRB’s Critical Issues in Transportation (2013a) could also be potentially helpful in identifying areas in which innovations are needed and research thus has a key role to play. Summit participants would explore strategies for addressing these challenges effectively under the new framework concept. In the case of disaster reduction, for example, the summit could survey opportunities to leverage and build on the disparate set of ongoing activities in sup- port of a cohesive value-added research initiative targeting national goals (see Box 6-1). In a similar way, the Framework Program of the Euro- pean Union (EU) leverages and builds on research activities of member nations to create pan-European value-added research. The committee anticipates that the national summit, perhaps with a modified scope, would be repeated as the framework evolves. The research challenges, for example, would need to be updated over time in response to environmental, technological, and social changes. The required frequency of follow-up summits is likely to become clearer as the framework develops. Resources would be needed to plan and conduct the summit and prepare a follow-up report (see Recommendation 2). The committee envisions that interested organizations—notably, those that might use the challenges to guide their research activities and investments—could well make contributions, at the urging of the leadership group, to sup- port the summit. Interested organizations could include federal and state government agencies, private companies, industry associations, univer- sities, and foundations. If a sufficiently large number of organizations were persuaded to contribute, the amount needed from each one would be relatively modest. The leadership group, spearheaded by SCOR, would appoint an organization to act as summit convener. This convener would assemble an organizing committee tasked with developing the summit agenda, recruiting speakers, and encouraging a broad range of organizations to participate. The organizing committee would be representative of orga- nizations potentially interested in contributing knowledge and resources to the new framework initiative. 

122 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future BOX 6-1 Disaster Reduction: Illustrating a Cohesive Value-Added Transportation Research Initiative The National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, a federal interagency body tasked with formulating science- and technology-based guidance for policy makers, identified six grand challenges for disaster reduction (Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction 2005): 1. Provide hazard and disaster information where and when it is needed, 2. Understand the natural processes that produce hazards, 3. Develop hazard-mitigation strategies and technologies, 4. Recognize and reduce vulnerability of interdependent critical infrastructure, 5. Assess disaster resilience using standard methods, and 6. Promote risk-wise behavior. Although these challenges do not mention transportation explic- itly, addressing them will require research into issues of trans- portation infrastructure, operations, and planning. Such research can, for example, suggest ways of reducing the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and inform the development of improved evacuation plans. Funding for transportation research related to disaster reduction comes from a variety of sources, including the National Science Foundation, the Department of Homeland Security, individual states through their departments of transportation and emergency management agencies, and the University Transportation Centers program. By sharing ideas and lessons learned, working together to identify research areas of common interest, and looking for poten- tial synergies, these (and other) organizations could bring new per- spectives to their individual research activities and add value to the overall research endeavor targeting disaster reduction. 

Recommendations 123 To ensure impartiality and independence from particular inter- est groups, the summit should be convened under the auspices of an organization that is widely perceived as being unbiased and reasonably isolated from the immediate political environment. This convening organization would also need to have stature and credibility in the eyes of stakeholders. To help ensure the desired openness to new ideas and opportunities, the convening organization should have experience in bringing people together from different sectors and disciplines to fur- ther national research objectives. In other words, it should be able to reach out to the traditional surface transportation research commu- nity and beyond to engage summit participants with a broad range of expertise and experience. The committee briefly considered the pros and cons of several candi- date convener organizations, as discussed in the following paragraphs. It anticipates, however, that the leadership group would want to under- take a more thorough examination of these and other candidates before selecting a summit convener. As discussed in Chapter 3, the U.S. DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) is responsible for coordinating and facilitating the department’s research programs across all modes; its five- year research, development, and technology strategic plan takes a systems- level view of the nation’s multimodal transportation system. RITA is also engaged in a broad range of subject areas and activities through its programs, including transportation data and analysis through the Bureau of Transportation Statistics; research and innovation through the Univer- sity Transportation Centers (UTC) program and the Volpe Center; and education and training through the Transportation Safety Institute (http:// www.rita.dot.gov/). Thus RITA possesses the necessary crossmodal and multimodal perspectives appropriate for a summit convener, although its strong federal focus and limited experience in engaging stakeholders across different sectors raises questions about its ability to engage the desired degree of diversity of summit participants. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), an international educational and scientific association of transportation professionals with nearly 17,000 members in more than 90 countries, is also a possible summit convener (http://www.ite.org/aboutite/index.asp). ITE addresses 

124 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future mobility and safety needs for all modes of ground transportation. It seeks to stimulate research; develop public awareness programs; support and encourage education; and encourage the exchange of professional infor- mation through its meetings, seminars, publications, and membership in its special-interest councils. Thus, ITE has many of the desired attri- butes for a summit convener, although its strong focus on transportation engineering raises questions about its ability to attract summit partici- pants from outside the traditional transportation community. Private foundations, such as the Eno Transportation Foundation, may be suitable candidates. Eno is a nonpartisan think tank that supports professional development programs, policy forums, and publications in its efforts to increase the transportation system’s mobility, safety, and sustainability across all modes (http://www.enotrans.org/about-us). It often works in partnership with government agencies, professional organizations, and other private organizations. The National Academies is also a potentially promising candidate, given the institution’s inde- pendent status and the relevant experience of bodies operating under its auspices. For example, TRB has experience both in convening expert committees tasked with exploring opportunities for multidisciplinary research in the national interest (e.g., TRB 2009) and in attracting a broad spectrum of the transportation community to its annual meeting and other activities. Recommendation 2: The summit convener should issue a report to the leadership group on the outcomes of the summit. This report would explore ways of implementing a new national surface transpor- tation research framework, discuss means of funding the framework initiative, and consider opportunities to leverage existing research. Two important questions need to be answered if the proposed new national research framework is to become a reality: • Which group or organization should take the lead in furthering the framework initiative after the summit? • Where is the initiative’s funding to come from? The committee recommends that the convener organization address these two questions in its postsummit report. In much the same way as 

Recommendations 125 the Mobility 2000 report (TTI 1990) formed a steppingstone toward a national IVHS initiative, the convener’s report on the national summit would form a base from which to develop technical and management plans for a framework initiative and build stakeholder support. Lead Organization At this preliminary stage, the committee considers it prudent to leave options open for the organizational structure of the entity tasked with developing and implementing the new transportation research frame- work. This would allow the research community itself to determine the most suitable option commensurate with its needs and available fund- ing. However, two general points merit consideration. First, initiatives for transportation research programming and fund- ing in the United States are generally organized according to a bottom- up approach, in contrast to the more top-down procedures used in some countries (see Chapter 4). The committee agreed, therefore, that the lead organization would likely be based on a distributed (i.e., bottom-up) model as described in Chapter 2. Its structure would reflect the diverse transportation community and its stakeholders, and it would probably be a cooperative venture. Past experience suggests that effective organi- zational structures could include a new nonprofit organization (as in the case of ITS America) or a special unit within an existing nonprofit (as in the case of SHRP, which was housed in the National Academies). Second, efforts to develop a more cohesive research framework would need to recognize that individual public-sector organizations (e.g., state DOTs, which own and operate major portions of the nation’s trans- portation infrastructure) need the freedom to pursue mission-specific research needs independent of and in addition to any national strategy or agenda. In addition, private-sector organizations would be free to pursue their competitive advantage in company-specific research activi- ties. Thus the lead organization would have to endorse the concept of a framework that provides guidance in the form of high-level priorities but allows individual organizations to identify for themselves the areas and means they will pursue. Such a “plug and play” concept (analogous to computer hardware to which a device can be connected and func- tions immediately) would provide opportunities for these organizations 

126 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future to maximize the value of their research activities by integrating them within a broader national vision for surface transportation. The concept would not, however, compromise the ability of individual public-sector organizations to simultaneously pursue other research objectives, nor the ability of private-sector organizations to freely pursue their com- mercial objectives. Funding Development of a new national research framework and the subsequent activities associated with its implementation will require sustained fund- ing over a period of years. Obtaining such funding clearly presents a chal- lenge in the current economic environment: requests for new research funding are highly unlikely to be met, and suggestions for major real- locations of existing research funds are likely to face strong opposition. The Highway Trust Fund, for example, is already insufficient to meet the demands placed on it. Assigning a larger proportion of the fund for research-related activities, such as the development and implementation of a new national research framework, would leave even less for opera- tions; this shortfall could exacerbate the existing problems in maintain- ing the nation’s aging transportation infrastructure and in building new infrastructure where needed. However, if the surface transportation research community is to compete effectively for scarce public and pri- vate funds, it needs to demonstrate its ability to address transportation challenges in a more holistic manner, as reflected in the proposed new national research framework. In the committee’s view, greater leveraging of current research activities could be a favorable approach for supporting the proposed framework initiative. The Federal Transportation Advisory Group, for example, has suggested that the large federal research investments made by the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in a variety of scientific and technological areas could be leveraged by the U.S. DOT for the benefit of the transportation system as a whole (FTAG 2001). For example, experience gained in developing high-performance materials for military and space applications might be applied in the design and manufacture of high strength-to-weight materials for auto- 

Recommendations 127 motive applications. Such leveraging of existing research investments could offer opportunities to start building the proposed new research framework. In the future, the U.S. DOT and DOE, for example, might work together to identify research areas of common interest, look for potential synergies, and explore possible cofunding. Hence the com- mittee suggests that the summit convener explore these approaches, together with other creative funding options, in its report to the leader- ship group. Suggestions for funding the framework initiative should also take into account some of the lessons learned from the EU Framework Program. Although this program has clearly been successful in fos- tering partnerships among European research organizations in sup- port of pan-European goals and in bringing European value added to the innovation process, the associated administrative burden is con- siderable (see Chapter 4). Thus the convener’s report will need to explore opportunities for building a cohesive research framework that does not depend on overly burdensome and costly administra- tive procedures. BUILD A MORE PRODUCTIVE FEDERAL RESEARCH ENTERPRISE The steps described above for building and implementing a new national research framework would involve interested parties from all levels of government, the private sector, academia, and nonprofit orga- nizations. To supplement these steps and further support the transition to a new research framework, the committee identified actions that could be taken within the federal government to help build a more cohesive and productive transportation research enterprise. The fed- eral government, after all, is a major sponsor of surface transportation research, as noted in Chapter 3, and federal research programs have “a unique and critical role to play in overcoming the challenges that face [the] nation’s transportation system” (RITA 2012, 7). In particular, federal involvement supports long-term national interests and societal goals through research targeting a more effective and efficient trans- portation system. 

128 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future Recommendation 3: The White House Office of Science and Technol- ogy Policy (OSTP) should convene a task force to explore potential syn- ergies and other gains from greater coordination and cohesion among federal agencies engaged in research relevant to surface transportation. Federal responsibility for transportation-related research is distributed across numerous government departments and agencies, but the extent of coordination among these activities is limited (see Chapter 3). The U.S. DOT is the federal entity explicitly tasked with supporting the nation’s transportation system. This responsibility has not, however, translated into a strong coordinating role, and as a result both the research and resources involving transportation are largely fragmented. Further, some estimates suggest that other federal agencies together invest more than the U.S. DOT does in transportation-related research (Brach 2005), with DOD and DOE in particular making considerable investments in support of their indi- vidual missions. In the committee’s judgment, establishing stronger working relation- ships among federal departments that conduct research related to surface transportation could lead to a more coordinated and cohesive research endeavor, consistent with the proposed new research framework. Such an approach could also result in more effective use of resources. A review of RITA’s most recent five-year strategic plan makes a similar point, noting that “many of the issues U.S. DOT faces are also being faced by other agen- cies, research institutions, and regulatory bodies” and recommending that the U.S. DOT “deepen its relationships with other federal agencies . . . to include research” (TRB 2013b, 12). OSTP, through its National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), has the lead responsibility within the executive branch for coordinat- ing science and technology policy across the diverse entities that make up the federal research enterprise. Hence OSTP would appear to be the natural leader of an initiative aimed at establishing greater coordination and cohesion among surface transportation–related research efforts in different federal departments. In fact, the NSTC Transportation R&D Committee5 established the first-ever governmentwide strategic plan- 5 For administrative reasons, this committee was subsumed under the NSTC Committee on Tech- nology after one year. 

Recommendations 129 ning process for transportation research in the late 1990s, but the effort foundered after a change of administration. In the committee’s view, the time has come to consider reestablishing such an initiative. Recommendation 4: The Secretary of Transportation should con- sider ways to strengthen the coordination of transportation research within the U.S. DOT and across other federal agencies. One promis- ing option for doing so would be to establish within the Office of the Secretary the position of chief scientist, who could serve as a science and technology advisor to the Secretary and be the U.S. DOT’s cham- pion for research. The committee considered various options for strengthening the coordi- nation of transportation research within the U.S. DOT and across other federal agencies, as follows: • Maintain the status quo, whereby the RITA Associate Administrator for Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T) is responsible for coordinating the U.S. DOT’s research programs; • Task the RITA Administrator with coordinating transportation research both within the U.S. DOT and across other federal agencies; • Move RITA’s current responsibilities for coordinating the U.S. DOT’s research programs into the Office of the Secretary; and • Appoint a chief scientist within the Office of the Secretary; this indi- vidual would be a distinguished transportation professional external to the U.S. DOT who would serve for a limited term (two or three years). Each of these options has strengths and weaknesses, as discussed in the following paragraphs. Currently, the RITA Associate Administrator for RD&T is responsible for coordinating research within the U.S. DOT. A major focal point for this coordination is the development of a departmental strategic plan for RD&T, with the latest version of the plan mandated by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). As noted in a recent review of RITA’s draft U.S. DOT RD&T strategic plan (TRB 2013b), such coor- dination is challenging, particularly given the many institutional and financial constraints the department faces. The authors of the review com- mended RITA’s attempt to overcome modal constraints in developing the 

130 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future strategic plan. However, they also found research coordination within the U.S. DOT to be less than optimal and, in addition, urged the depart- ment to strengthen its relationships with other federal agencies in sup- port of its research endeavor. In this context, it is natural to ask whether an associate administrator within RITA has the necessary organizational status to improve research coordination among the modal administra- tions and to liaise effectively with other federal agencies. Possible options for elevating the status of the U.S. DOT’s research leader, or champion, could be to charge the RITA administrator, rather than an associate administrator, with the role of strengthening research coordination, or to move RITA’s responsibilities to the Office of the Sec- retary under a senior executive position. Both these options would con- fer greater status on the U.S. DOT’s research leader, but both also have significant disadvantages. The RITA administrator has not always been a scientist, and it is far from clear that an individual lacking accomplishments and recognition in the research field would command the respect of the federal research community in general and of senior research managers within the U.S. DOT in particular. In addition, the RITA administrator has many admin- istrative duties that would limit his or her ability to focus on coordination issues. A senior executive position within the Office of the Secretary could have both the necessary status and time to address the issue of greater research coordination; however, a disadvantage would be the lack of funds to support such a position. The Office of the Secretary’s budget for surface transportation research is very modest, as indicated in Table 3-1, and has frequently been a target for cost and staff reductions during past appropriations. A further complication with establishing a new senior executive position within the Office of the Secretary is that such positions are subject to a cap set by the Office of Personnel Management. Thus, any new position could require the U.S. DOT to relinquish another such position to avoid exceeding headcount limitations. Furthermore, moving RITA’s responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary would require some level of authorization by Congress. The position of chief scientist is widely used in mission-oriented enterprises of government and the private sector, both in the United States and abroad. The roles and responsibilities of chief scientists vary 

Recommendations 131 widely across these enterprises, ranging from a narrow scientific super- visory and decision-making role (e.g., in an expedition on a deep-ocean research vessel) to a broad research advisory or leadership role in a fed- eral mission agency or a major corporation. In the former case, the chief scientist is typically responsible for the specific scientific mission, coor- dinating the work of the various scientists involved, and having ultimate decision-making authority about the mission’s scientific aspects. In the latter case, at the other end of the spectrum, the chief scientist may be responsible for ensuring the quality, relevance, impact, and future vision of the entire agency’s or corporation’s research program. In some cases, the chief scientist may also have line and budget authority over all or part of the research program. The establishment of a chief scientist position, or a role with similar stature, within the U.S. DOT could be a valuable step toward enhancing the department’s research culture and capacity, thereby strengthening its ability to take an active role in furthering the proposed new research frame- work.6 The appointment of a distinguished transportation professional to a position within the Office of the Secretary could help ensure that the chief scientist had the stature and background needed to communicate effec- tively with counterparts in other government agencies, with the President’s science advisor, with the scientific and professional communities, with academia, and with the private sector. One advantage of a limited-term appointment would be the reduced likelihood of the chief scientist being assigned numerous day-to-day responsibilities that would detract from his or her ability to address big-picture issues. There would, however, be a con- comitant disadvantage in that any new chief scientist would have a limited time (two or three years) in which to become familiar with the issues and establish the effective working relationships needed to have an impact on the U.S. DOT’s research enterprise. And, as noted earlier, the Office of the Secretary has a very limited budget for research activities. Many of the research, development, and technology entities within the federal government, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the U.S. Air Force, Army, and Navy; the National Aeronautics and Space 6 In the context of the chief scientist position, “science” is interpreted broadly to include physical and social sciences, as well as other fields of knowledge relevant to transportation. 

132 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future Administration; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; and DOE, have one or more chief scientists. The value of such positions appears to have been confirmed over time, especially since the 1950s, as most have been sustained and more have been added. At the secretarial level within the U.S. DOT, however, the chief scientist position has had a somewhat uneven history because of organizational and political changes.7 Thus, the Secretary would need to consider the lessons learned from past expe- rience when assessing the pros and cons of reestablishing the chief sci- entist position. The chief scientist could, of course, be called on to pursue critical issues across all modes, and not just in the area of surface transporta- tion. The Secretary would need to consider the potential implications for all modes when assessing the merits of establishing the chief scientist position. Recommendation 5: The U.S. DOT should engage more fully with the research community, with a view to leveraging investments in technical and policy areas by other federal departments, as well as by states, industry, and academia. If the U.S. DOT is to play a major role in furthering the new research framework, it needs to strengthen its own research capacity. Historically, the department’s science interests have been modest and narrow in scope com- pared with those of some other federal departments. Hence the U.S. DOT as a whole lacks the strong research culture developed by departments such as DOE and DOD to support their missions, despite efforts in recent years by individual modal administrations to strengthen their research efforts. For example, a TRB review committee recently observed a “strong insti- tutional commitment to continuous improvement in the management of 7 The position of chief scientist at U.S. DOT was first established in 1970, when it was located within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Systems Development. The position initially had no associated line or day-to-day responsibilities, but later became a career position before eventually being eliminated in the early 1980s. In the late 1990s, the Associate Administra- tor for Innovation, Research, and Education performed a number of “chief scientist” functions for the Deputy Secretary, including chairing the committee responsible for departmentwide R&D strategic planning, representing U.S. DOT at OSTP, and serving as executive director of the NSTC Transportation R&D committee. However, these chief scientist functions were not pursued after the 2001 change in administration. 

Recommendations 133 the FRA [Federal Railroad Administration] R&D program” (TRB 2012a). Institutional commitment to other U.S. DOT research programs, however, has attracted less favorable comment.8 Overall, the framework committee was struck by the inconsistencies and unevenness in research management across the U.S. DOT and by the need for a more coherent departmentwide approach that builds on best practices developed by the department’s indi- vidual administrations. The U.S. DOT is essentially a mission-oriented agency with a very small research component, as illustrated by an analysis of FY 2013 data for various federal budget functions (Hourihan 2012). This analysis esti- mated the ratio of R&D funding to total funding to be an order of magni- tude less for transportation than for several other areas, including energy, health, and agriculture.9 By engaging with other federal departments, the U.S. DOT could leverage these departments’ research investments in a variety of areas, such as human performance and behavior; information and communication systems; advanced materials and structural technol- ogies; sensing and measurement technologies; and social, economic, and institutional policy issues for the benefit of the nation’s surface transpor- tation system (FTAG 2001). Such engagements would not only benefit the U.S. DOT, but would also allow other federal departments to explore transportation-related research opportunities and apply their research results to help solve a wider range of problems. Other initiatives by the federal research community, such as those that assess the impacts of research investments, should be of potential interest to the U.S. DOT as it seeks to enhance its research capacity. For example, OSTP’s Science of Science Policy Roadmap initiative10 was an inter- agency collaboration that explored the potential for a more rigorous and 8 See, for example, a recent report by TRB’s Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Commit- tee (TRB 2012b), which expressed concern about the adverse effects of periodic reorganizations, reassignments, and budget revisions regarding the development and delivery of LTPP products. 9 This analysis is based on provisional budget data, but Hourihan notes that the ratio of R&D spending to general spending changed very little between FY 2003 and FY 2012, and in some cases it is identical to what it was 10 years ago. 10 The goal of research on the science of science policy is to “provide a scientifically rigorous, quan- titative basis from which policy makers and researchers can assess the impacts of the nation’s scientific and engineering enterprise, improve their understanding of its dynamics, and assess the likely outcomes” (NSTC 2008, 1). 

134 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future quantitative basis for science and technology policy through improved data, tools, and methods (NSTC 2008). Similarly, the Science and Tech- nology for America’s Reinvestment: Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Science (STAR METRICS) initiative is a multiagency venture led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and OSTP.11 The aim of STAR METRICS is to help the federal government document the value of its R&D investments by measuring their impacts on employment, knowl- edge generation, and health outcomes. In 2010, NIH and NSF together committed $1 million to STAR METRICS for its first year. The U.S. DOT was a regular participant in meetings of the NSTC’s Committee on Technology during the late 1990s, but its engagement in activities of the federal research community appears to have waned. For example, it did not participate in the Science of Science Policy Roadmap initiative, nor is it involved in the STAR METRICS initiative. As a result, the U.S. DOT is missing opportunities to strengthen and broaden its research capabilities by leveraging the expertise and experience of other federal departments and agencies. In contrast to its limited engagement in activities of the federal research community, the U.S. DOT has strong research partnerships with state DOTs, particularly in highway research. Federal–state initia- tives, such as NCHRP and the Transportation Pooled Fund Program, support collaborative research involving FHWA, state DOTs, and others. The committee encourages the U.S. DOT to build on these collaborative efforts and to follow the example of transportation research organizations in other nations by reaching out to a broad spectrum of research partners in the public, private, and academic sectors. As noted in Chapter 4, such engagement with other research organizations helps improve research quality and build overall research capacity. Recommendation 6: A broad and robust program of basic and advanced research that encompasses the many disciplines relevant to surface transportation should be established. To help ensure its longev- ity, the program needs to be embedded in a culture that values research. 11 http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2010/od-01.htm. 

Recommendations 135 In the committee’s judgment, incremental improvements in U.S. surface transportation will not by themselves produce the transfor- mations required to meet the long-term challenges associated with increased global competition, the growth and aging of the U.S. popula- tion, demands for energy, and ever-tighter constraints on environmen- tal impacts. Other advisory committees have made similar observations, and suggested more ambitious agendas, over the years. The Federal Transportation Advisory Group, for example, noted that “the solution lies in new technology and concepts” (FTAG 2001). A 2001 report from the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC), which advises FHWA on its research activities, gave examples of basic long- term research that would go beyond solving problems incrementally; the report observed that such research “has the potential for high payoffs, even though it tends to be risky and typically requires longer to complete [than applied research]” (TRB 2001). The RTCC went on to highlight the importance of federal investments in research aimed at innovative solutions to problems, noting that state and private-sector research pro- grams are unlikely to undertake this type of research. Despite widespread recognition of the federal role in supporting basic and advanced research, the U.S. DOT has historically faced difficulties in providing continued support for such research. The first department- wide attempt of this type, the Transportation Advanced Research Pro- gram, was launched in 1973 by the Office of the Secretary. The program was designed exclusively for universities, used nationwide competition, and was funded at an initial level of $3 million per year ($14.5 million per year in 2010 dollars). After several years of operation, however, changes in U.S. DOT leadership resulted in the program’s discontinuation. Subsequent efforts sought to build on the strength of universities in knowledge creation through basic and advanced research; in particu- lar, the UTC program was established in 1987 with the aim of promot- ing research, education, and technology transfer. Over the years the UTC program has grown considerably (see Chapter 3), but this growth has not led to an increase in support for basic research, and several expert committees have expressed concern about the program’s applied research bias. In 1993, for example, a committee tasked with helping the U.S. DOT review the UTC program noted that “typically, local sponsors are interested 

136 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future in applied research and not the high-risk, cutting-edge research envisaged by the program’s founders” (TRB 1993, 2). More recently, the RTCC ana- lyzed UTC projects on highways included in the Research in Progress database and concluded that 20 percent at most could be categorized as advanced research, with the remaining 80 percent being highly applied. The RTCC expressed concern that this applied research bias “diverts the program . . . from the strength of universities” (TRB 2008a, 76). In 2005, FHWA’s Exploratory Advanced Research (EAR) program (see Chapter 3) was established by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), with funding designated for “longer-term, higher-risk, breakthrough research with the potential for dramatic long-term improvements to transporta- tion systems” (FHWA 2011, 1). As an open, competitive program, EAR provides opportunities for investigator-initiated research, a feature often deemed particularly valuable for basic research (e.g., TRB 2008b). In the committee’s view, the EAR program promises (provided funding con- tinues to be available) to increase the proportion of quality, potentially breakthrough research in FHWA’s portfolio. As required by congressio- nal authorization, however, the program is focused on highway-related research, and thus it does not address basic and advanced research across the broad spectrum of U.S. DOT activities. Nevertheless, it is a valuable model for a departmentwide initiative. The committee has identified a need for such an initiative: a wide- ranging and sustained program of research, exploring potentially high- payoff opportunities, to enhance U.S. surface transportation in support of societal goals. Such a program of basic and advanced research would fill one of the critical gaps in current U.S. surface transportation research (see Chapter 3). The committee recommends that the program link to and coordinate with research conducted by other federal agencies (including NSF, DOE, and DOD) in areas offering opportunities to revolutionize transportation performance. Many innovations used in transportation were originally developed in other fields (see Chapter 3) and applied suc- cessfully to a component or specific element, rather than to the system or the service provided. Basic research focused on transportation systems and services is needed to address complex problems related to interde- 

Recommendations 137 pendencies in the system, interactions between different components, and the impact of institutional policies (public or private) and individual decisions, which may be affected by regulatory restrictions and promo- tional subsidies. The committee also recommends that the program be overseen by a panel of distinguished subject experts, along the lines of NSF practices, and that the program be proactive in engaging university researchers. This latter feature would not only take advantage of uni- versities’ expertise and experience in basic research, but would also support the education of the next generation of transportation lead- ers. The committee acknowledges, however, the significant challenges in establishing and sustaining this kind of program, such as finding adequate funding. Also, in the committee’s view, there is no clear institutional home for a comprehensive, multidisciplinary, basic and advanced research program pertaining to surface transportation. The U.S. DOT’s failure to sustain basic research programs in the past and its lack of a strong, department- wide research culture raise concerns about the long-term viability of any new basic research program within the department. Nonetheless, three options identified by the committee as worthy of further examination would all place the proposed program within the U.S. DOT. One option would be to expand FHWA’s EAR program to all modes of surface transportation and to greatly increase its funding level. A second option would be to expand and restructure the UTC program to incen- tivize basic and advanced research. A third option would be to create an Advanced Research Projects Agency–Transportation (ARPA-T) within the U.S. DOT. Such an agency would be somewhat analogous to DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E), which in turn was modeled on DOD’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). DARPA supports high-risk, long-term research, at universi- ties and elsewhere, which has the potential of producing revolutionary results. The goals of ARPA-E are to promote and fund R&D appropriate to advanced energy technologies. The committee envisions an ARPA-T initiative having a broader perspective than ARPA-E, which has a strong technology focus. Nonetheless, the overall ARPA-E framework may be 

138 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future worth considering as a way for the U.S. DOT to aggressively pursue advanced transportation research. In the committee’s view, efforts by the U.S. DOT to strengthen its research culture could help sustain the proposed new program of basic and advanced research. For example, the U.S. DOT could explore oppor- tunities to build the research capacity of its professional staff through ini- tiatives such as the Intergovernmental Personnel Act’s Mobility Program, which provides for the temporary assignment of federal government per- sonnel to other federal agencies, state and local governments, universities, federally funded R&D centers, and other eligible organizations. Assign- ments that facilitate interactions between staff at the U.S. DOT and those at research universities or NSF could be particularly helpful in building the U.S. DOT’s research capacity and culture. Further in-service education of current and future R&D leaders would be a valuable step. The committee acknowledges that federal funding of basic and advanced research, given present budgetary constraints, will be difficult. Nevertheless, it sees the future costs of not funding basic and advanced research as huge, and this view appears to be substantiated by actions taken elsewhere—notably in Europe, where both the EU and France have set aside funding explicitly for basic research. Thus the European Research Council was established within the EU’s Seventh Framework Program with the specific objective of allowing researchers to identify new opportunities and directions in basic research. The French National Research Agency (ANR) funds research projects on a competitive basis, with some of this funding devoted to basic research. In neither case, however, is the research tied in particular to surface transportation, although ANR’s sustainable energy area includes programs that address transportation and mobility. Recommendation 7: The U.S. DOT should continue its activities that promote knowledge transfer and disseminate research results. The U.S. DOT actively supports knowledge transfer and dissemina- tion of research results through a variety of mechanisms, which include • Requiring research proposals to address implementation; • Providing resources directly for technology transfer and training; • Supporting databases to enhance access to knowledge; 

Recommendations 139 • Supporting courses, conferences, workshops, and peer exchanges to facilitate the acquisition of new knowledge; • Making data available to researchers; and • Supporting workforce development by training students engaged in research, notably through the UTC program. For example, the UTC program requires centers to enter their projects into the Research in Progress (RiP) database,12 which serves as a clearing- house for UTC projects and also allows other researchers and practitio- ners to search for related information. In addition, centers are required to include their research products in the Transportation Research Inter- national Documentation (TRID) database, which provides access to more than one million records on transportation research worldwide.13 Many UTCs also require their researchers to develop implementation and dissemination plans. Other programs target specific audiences or aspects of transportation. Since 1982, the FHWA-supported Local Technical Assistance Program and Tribal Technical Assistance Program have assisted jurisdictions in improving their roads and bridges. A network of centers provides an information clearinghouse, introduces new technology and methods to local and tribal governments, and provides training and personalized technical assistance (Saunders and Shea 2008). In this context, the com- mittee notes that sharing best practices and innovations from abroad, as well as from research supported by the U.S. DOT, could prove helpful for state and local jurisdictions. FHWA’s Every Day Counts initiative14 focuses directly on implementation; it is designed to identify and deploy innovations aimed at reducing the time it takes to deliver highway proj- ects, enhancing safety, and protecting the environment. National Highway Institute courses, conferences, workshops, and peer exchanges are also important ways of disseminating research results. In many instances, the U.S. DOT partners with other organiza- tions to facilitate knowledge transfer and dissemination. For example, the Transportation Asset Management Guide (AASHTO 2011a) was 12 http://rip.trb.org. 13 http://trid.trb.org. 14 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/. 

140 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future developed under an NCHRP project, with additional funding from FHWA. Once the guide was completed, FHWA funded the develop- ment of a National Highway Institute course on asset management.15 FHWA has also actively supported the National Asset Management Conferences, which include peer exchanges focused on specific asset management topics. The U.S. DOT plays an important role in making data and models available to researchers. The Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program16 and the Highway Performance Monitoring System17 are rich sources of data that have proved valuable to researchers. The LTPP database, for example, includes data on over 2,500 pavement sections collected since 1988. To encourage university students, professors, and highway department engineers from around the world to use the LTPP database, a paper-writing contest, cosponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers, is held each year. The Highway Performance Monitoring System database includes data on the condition, performance, and use of the nation’s highways. Other U.S. DOT databases of potential value to researchers include the National Bridge Inventory,18 the Freight Analysis Framework,19 and the National Transit Database.20 RAISE AWARENESS OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Transportation’s role as a driver of economic growth and a key determi- nant of quality of life is widely acknowledged both by the United States and its competitors. However, the role of research in improving trans- portation frequently goes unrecognized in the United States outside of the confines of the transportation research community itself. High- 15 http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/training/course_detail.aspx?num=FHWA-NHI-131106&cat=&ke y=Transportation+Asset+Managemen&num=&loc=&sta=%25&tit=&typ=&lev=&ava=&str= &end=&drl. 16 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/tfhrc/programs/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/. 17 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms.cfm. 18 http://nationalbridges.com/nbi. 19 http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/faf3/netwkdbflow/. 20 http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/ntd.htm. 

Recommendations 141 profile national policy initiatives, such as the ambitious fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks issued in August 2012,21 have high- lighted the importance of transportation research aimed at reducing vehicle fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In general, however, the value of transportation research, particularly research on infrastructure, is frequently overlooked until some element of the transportation system fails, and alternative technologies and methods are unavailable to solve the problem. For example, the 2011 and 2012 “Carmaggedon” weekend shutdowns of Freeway 405 in Los Angeles for major repairs highlighted the need for ways of replacing or repairing assets more quickly to avoid major disruptions. Such research on rapid construction under SHRP 2 aims to reduce both inconvenience to travel- ers and the costs of infrastructure repair and replacement. Recommendation 8: The U.S. DOT should establish a relationship with OSTP to elevate the visibility of transportation research and its importance on the national science and technology agenda. Although Americans often care deeply about many of the benefits that transportation research can provide, they may not see research as a means of achieving these benefits. In Asia and Europe, on the other hand, transportation research is often given greater prominence as a means of achieving societal goals. As noted during the 2008 scan tour, the prevalent belief in every country visited was that “if you aren’t doing transportation R&D, then you won’t be globally competitive” (Elston et al. 2009, 2). As discussed in Chapter 5, domestic sectors outside of transportation take a variety of approaches to communicating the value of their research to different audiences. In the medical field, NIH is well served by an advo- cacy community that includes groups that advocate for specific diseases or conditions; groups that advocate for certain populations; outspoken and influential industries; extramural research scientists; health care pro- viders who apply research results; and the American people themselves (Anderson 2011). Other federal agencies, however, “cannot always rely on a similar groundswell of public support to sustain their budget” 21 http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2012/Obama+Administration+Finalizes +Historic+54.5+mpg+Fuel+Efficiency+Standards. 

142 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future (Eliasson 2009, 26). The DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory seeks to influence policy through its scientific achievements; testifying before congressional committees provides an opportunity to tell policy makers what the laboratory has accomplished through research (Chris- tensen 2011). The committee that conducted the most recent decadal survey in astronomy and astrophysics sought to capture the public imagination through the release of photos and simple but compelling language to the media (NRC 2010), thereby helping to make a case for research in astronomy, most of which is usually neither seen nor under- stood by the public. The committee concludes that a concerted and sustained effort by the U.S. DOT and OSTP in particular is needed to raise public awareness of the value of surface transportation research in the United States. The U.S. DOT is the primary federal entity for shaping policies and programs to protect the safety, adequacy, and efficiency of the transportation system. Regard- ing science and technology in general (which includes but is not limited to transportation), OSTP leads federal policy making and provides advice to the President and other White House officials. Consistent with the respon- sibilities of the U.S. DOT and OSTP, therefore, the committee considers it incumbent on the two organizations to work together to increase the visibility of surface transportation research and its priority on the national agenda. A chief scientist within the Office of the Secretary of Transporta- tion (see Recommendation 4) could play a major role in this activity. Recommendation 9: The many and diverse organizations that make up the surface transportation research community should, both indi- vidually and in cooperation with each other, take a proactive approach to sharing the successes of transportation research with a wide range of audiences, including elected officials, other high-level decision makers, and the general public. To this end, the surface transportation research community should • Continue to build the skills and culture needed to communicate effectively with diverse audiences, following the example set by AASHTO; • Seek to quantify the impacts of research activities and the associ- ated returns on investment; 

Recommendations 143 • Highlight successes relating to transportation infrastructure, which is often taken for granted by users; and • Commission a retrospective evaluation of selected transportation research activities over a period of years, with a view to demon- strating their value in the pursuit of national policy goals. AASHTO’s Research Advisory Committee has been actively exploring opportunities among diverse audiences, including transportation execu- tives and other decision makers, to increase their appreciation for the role of research.22 The committee’s annual publication Research Makes the Difference highlights outcomes that exemplify the high returns on transportation research investments by state DOTs.23 AASHTO also has studied different communications processes for sharing information about research with various kinds of recipients (e.g., Zmud et al. 2009). Although AASHTO’s initiatives are of considerable value, they do not provide a comprehensive perspective on how surface transportation research in general, including multimodal and crossmodal efforts, has ben- efited the nation over periods of 10 years or more. For example, the com- mittee is not aware of any assessments of surface transportation research analogous to the report Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It?, which was prepared in response to a request from the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior (NRC 2001). This report took a compre- hensive look at the outcomes of DOE’s research in energy efficiency and fossil energy over two decades, and it found that significant economic-, environmental-, and national security–related benefits had resulted. In the committee’s judgment, a similar (and collaborative) effort by members of the surface transportation research community could help draw attention to the role its research has played over time in furthering the nation’s economic and societal goals. This effort would supplement ongoing communications initiatives by individual organizations, and it would take advantage of lessons learned about how to communicate effectively with different audiences. 22 See, for example, AASHTO (2011b). 23 http://research.transportation.org/Pages/ResearchMakestheDifference.aspx. 

144 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future The need to quantify research impacts and associated returns on investment merits special attention in the context of the communica- tions initiative articulated in Recommendation 9. As discussed in Chap- ter 4, transportation research organizations in other countries emphasize research evaluation as an essential part of their research frameworks, and they regard quantitative metrics as particularly valuable in assessing research outcomes. In the United States, efforts to measure the impacts of research activities and associated returns on investment have been limited in scope, as noted in Chapter 3. Given the value of quantita- tive metrics in informing decisions about future research investments, a greater focus on quantitative assessments of research activities offers the potential to make the new research framework a more useful and robust tool. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS Much is at stake as the United States seeks to ensure that its surface trans- portation systems meet the challenges of the 21st century. Changing trade patterns, a growing and aging population, and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are among the factors placing new demands on surface transportation. Research has a critical role to play in explor- ing creative options and developing cost-effective solutions that support the nation’s economic growth, position it to be globally competitive, and enhance its inhabitants’ quality of life. One of the challenges facing policy makers is deciding how best to invest the limited research resources of the present so that transporta- tion continues to meet the nation’s needs in years to come. Toward that end, a new research framework would offer opportunities to leverage the research conducted by individual organizations and add value to the over- all national research endeavor. By encouraging transportation research organizations and the broader research community to work together in support of societal goals, the framework has the potential to make sur- face transportation research more productive, to address problems that have been neglected because of the current fragmented approach, and to explore crosscutting systems-level solutions to a variety of problems. Building and fully implementing a new and cohesive research frame- work to replace the current fragmented and ad hoc approach is likely 

Recommendations 145 to take years. In the meantime, much can be done to make U.S. surface transportation research more productive. As the U.S. DOT takes steps to build its research capacity and culture, a variety of public, private, academic, and nonprofit organizations should be cooperatively engaged in starting to create that new framework. REFERENCES Abbreviations AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials FTAG Federal Transportation Advisory Group FHWA Federal Highway Administration NRC National Research Council NSTC National Science and Technology Council RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration TRB Transportation Research Board TTI Texas A&M Transportation Institute AASHTO. 2011a. Transportation Asset Management Guide: A Focus on Implementation, 1st ed. Washington, D.C. AASHTO. 2011b. Leading in Lean Times: The Value of Research to Transportation Exec- utives. Presented at AASHTO Annual Meeting, Detroit, Mich., Oct. 13–17. http:// research.transportation.org/Documents/RAC%20Docs/CEOs%20and%20the %20Value%20of%20Research.PDF. Anderson, J. 2011. NIH: Turning Discovery into Health. Presented to Committee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., July 19. Brach, A. M. 2005. Identifying Trends in Federal Transportation Research Funding: The Complex Task of Assembling Comprehensive Data. TR News, No. 241, November– December, pp. 3–9. Christensen, D. 2011. Transportation Energy in the U.S.: Directions. Presented to Com- mittee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transportation, Transpor- tation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Oct. 24. Eliasson, K. 2009. Priority Setting in U.S. Science Policy. VA 2009:22. VINNOVA Analysis, Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, Stockholm, Sweden. http:// www.vinnova.se/upload/EPiStorePDF/va-09-22.pdf. Elston, D., D. Huft, B. T. Harder, J. Curtis, M. R. Evans, C. W. Jenks, L. McGinnis, H. R. Paul, G. Roberts, E. Wingfield, and J. B. Wlaschin. 2009. Transportation Research 

146 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future Program Administration in Europe and Asia. Report FHWA-PL-09-015. Federal Highway Administration. http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl09015/pl09015.pdf. FHWA. 2011. Exploratory Advanced Research Program. Publication FHWA-HRT-12-019. U.S. Department of Transportation. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/advancedresearch/ pubs/12019/index.cfm. FTAG. 2001. Vision 2050: An Integrated National Transportation System. National Sci- ence and Technology Council, Washington, D.C. http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/www/ people/rjhans/docs/vision2050.pdf. Hourihan, M. 2012. Brief: Potential Impacts of the FY 2013 House Budget on Federal R&D. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. http:// archives.aaas.org/docs/2013-HouseBudgetRDBrief.pdf. NRC. 2001. Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. http://www.nap. edu/catalog/10165.html. NRC. 2010. New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12951#toc. NSTC. 2008. The Science of Science Policy: A Federal Research Roadmap. Report to the Subcommittee on Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. http://scienceofsciencepolicy.net/sites/all/themes/ sosp_theme3/userfiles/SoSP_Roadmap.pdf. RITA. 2012. Research, Development, and Technology Strategic Plan FY 2012. Draft. U.S. Department of Transportation. June 7. Saunders, D., and D. Shea. 2008. LTAP/TTAP: 25 Years of Service. Public Roads, Vol. 72, No. 3, November–December, pp. 8–17. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/ 08nov/02.cfm. Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction. 2005. Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction. National Science and Technology Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.sdr.gov/ docs/SDRGrandChallengesforDisasterReduction.pdf. TRB. 1984. Special Report 202: America’s Highways: Accelerating the Search for Innovation. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. TRB. 1991. Special Report 232: Advanced Vehicle and Highway Technologies. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. TRB. 1993. Measuring Quality: A Review Process for the University Transportation Centers Program. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. TRB. 2001. Special Report 261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ sr/sr261.pdf. TRB. 2008a. Special Report 295: The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr295.pdf. 

Recommendations 147 TRB. 2008b. Special Report 292: Safety Research on Highway Infrastructure and Opera- tions: Improving Priorities, Coordination, and Quality. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/ sr/sr292.pdf. TRB. 2009. Special Report 299: A Transportation Research Program for Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change and Conserving Energy. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. TRB. 2012a. Letter Report to Joseph Szabo, Administrator of the Federal Railroad Admin- istration, from the Committee for Review of the FRA Federal, Development, and Demonstration Programs. May 31. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/reports/ frar&d_May_2012.pdf. TRB. 2012b. Letter Report to Victor Mendez, Administrator of FHWA, and John Horsley, Executive Director of AASHTO, from the TRB Long-Term Pavement Performance Committee. Aug. 3. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sp/ltpp_letter_30.pdf. TRB. 2013a. Critical Issues in Transportation. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/ general/CriticalIssues13.pdf. TRB. 2013b. Letter Report to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood from the Commit- tee on the Review of the U.S. DOT Strategic Plan for Research, Development, and Tech- nology. April 30. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/reports/U.S. DOTRD&T_ May_2013.pdf. TTI. 1990. Proceedings of a National Workshop on IVHS Sponsored by Mobility 2000. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Dallas, Tex., March 19–21. http://ntl.bts.gov/ lib/jpodocs/repts_te/9063.pdf. Zmud, J. P., J. L. Paasche, M. Zmud, T. J. Lomax, J. Schofer, and J. Meyer. 2009. NCHRP Report 610: Communication Matters: Communicating the Value of Transportation Research Guidebook. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_610.pdf.