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.

3 Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research To identify lessons learned from other frameworks and to evaluate their suitability for strengthening surface transportation research in the United States (as discussed in Chapters 4 and 5), the committee first established a baseline by examining the present U.S. surface transportation research enterprise. This chapter summarizes the committee’s review of that enter- prise according to principal funding sources: the federal government, state and local governments, industry, or foundations. It offers selected examples of ongoing and completed surface transportation research pro- grams to illustrate their range of research activities. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of the current research framework are discussed as a pre- cursor to identifying areas for improvement (Chapter 6). U.S. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH ENTERPRISE Research on surface transportation in the United States today is diverse and decentralized, reflecting the nature of the overall transportation sys- tem itself. The highway industry, for example, includes “federal, state, and local government agencies responsible for constructing, operating, and maintaining U.S. highways, as well as scores of private companies of various sizes and specialties that carry out much highway design and most highway construction work; [they also] supply materials, equip- ment, and services used by the public agencies” (TRB 2001a, 16). Sur- face transportation research is not limited to the infrastructural issues that were critical in the early days of building the nation’s rail, highway, and transit systems. Transportation research now involves many disci- plines, of which engineering is but one. For example, research aimed at achieving a better understanding of how people and businesses use the 36 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 37 transportation system requires experts knowledgeable in areas such as economics, behavioral sciences, information technology, political sci- ence, and public administration. Surface transportation research in the United States involves actors and organizations not only from governments but from academia, the private sector, and associations, foundations, and other nonprofit orga- nizations. Each of these diverse stakeholders has its own priorities and faces its own set of challenges. As a result, U.S. surface transportation research often appears to be fragmented and relatively disorganized, particularly compared with defense research (Skinner 1997) or with transportation research in smaller countries with no federal–state divide (Elston et al. 2009). The following four subsections provide an overview of activities and programs supported by major funders in the federal government, state and local governments, industry, and foundations. But the entity fund- ing research is not necessarily, of course, the entity that conducts the research. Thus, when considering the desirable attributes of a national research framework, it is important to note that organizations engaged in the nation’s surface transportation research may have differing per- spectives, depending on whether they fund research, provide research, or both. Universities, for example, are not major research funders, although they are among the most important research providers. By contrast, both the federal government and private industry fund research and also con- duct some of this research in-house. Box 3-1 lists four major categories of research providers and offers examples of the studies they perform. Federal Government The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) is the principal entity within the federal government tasked with supporting the nation’s trans- portation system. The department undertakes research in support of its mission, which requires it to ensure a transportation system “[meeting] vital national interests and [enhancing] the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future” (http://www.dot.gov/mission/about-us). Other federal departments, including the Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense (DOD), also fund and conduct surface transportation–related research in support of their missions. 

38 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future BOX 3-1 Examples of U.S. Providers of Research Relevant to Surface Transportation Federal Government • The national laboratories conduct significant amounts of federally funded transportation-related research. For exam- ple, the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory conducts research on alternative fuels and power- trains, including fuel cells and batteries (Christensen 2011); the Department of Defense has dual-use (military–civilian) research under way in its National Automotive Center (http:// tardec.army.mil/business/national-automotive-center.aspx). • The U.S. DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) conducts research across a number of transportation-related areas through its Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (http://www.volpe.dot.gov/ coi/index.html). • The Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Stan- dards and Technology conducts research on materials and manufacturing at its Center for Automotive Lightweighting (http://www.nist.gov/mml/msed/materials_performance/ sheet_metal_forming.cfm). Academia Universities and affiliated entities are heavily engaged in trans- portation research through contracts with transportation service providers, private industry, and federal and state govern- ments (e.g., through RITA’s University Transportation Centers program). 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 39 Industry • U.S. automotive manufacturers and suppliers perform in- house research. • Nontraditional firms are engaged in transportation-related research (e.g., Google’s much-publicized efforts involving a driverless vehicle). Independent Contractors Various independent research and development contractors (often organized as nonprofits) are also part of the transportation research landscape, undertaking a range of research activities for government and industry clients; examples include Battelle (www. battelle.org) and Southwest Research Institute (www.swri.org/). U.S. DOT Much of the U.S. DOT’s support for surface transportation research derives from the department’s modal administrations (http://www.dot. gov/administrations), namely, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal Railroad Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Adminis- tration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and, notably, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (see Table 3-1). Of particu- lar interest in the context of a national framework for surface transporta- tion research, however, are the programs of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), which are not constrained to be modally focused. RITA was established in 2004, and one of its responsibil- ities is to coordinate, facilitate, and review U.S. DOT research programs. [Resources for this activity are relatively modest, however, because much of RITA’s budget is committed to the University Transportation Centers (UTC) and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) programs.] 

40 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future TABLE 3-1 U.S. DOT Support Enacted for Surface Transportation Research, FY 2010 Budget as Program Agency or Budget Percentage Major Programs Budget Office ($ millions) of Totala > (– $5 million) ($ millions) FHWA 291 30.7 Surface transportation 195 research Training and education 25 SHRP 2 48 FTA 60 6.3 National program 44 TCRP 10 FRA 42 4.4 Rail R&D 38 RITA 227 23.9 UTC 82 BTS 27 ITS 108 OST 18 1.9 NHTSA 110 11.6 Research and analysis 61 PHMSA 10 1.1 FMCSA 7 0.7 State DOTs 183 19.3 NCHRP 40 and SP&Rb Total 948 100.0 678 Note: FHWA = Federal Highway Administration; SHRP 2 = Strategic Highway Research Program 2; FTA = Federal Transit Administration; TCRP = Transit Cooperative Research Program; FRA = Fed- eral Railroad Administration; R&D = research and development; RITA = Research and Innovative Technology Administration; UTC = University Transportation Centers; BTS = Bureau of Transporta- tion Statistics; ITS = Intelligent Transportation Systems; OST = Office of the Secretary of Transporta- tion; NHTSA = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; PHMSA = Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; FMCSA = Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program; SP&R = State Planning and Research program. a Percentages may not sum to 100.0 because of rounding errors. b The SP&R program, a major component of the U.S. DOT’s research budget, is included because federal funds constitute a substantial part of this program’s funding. Source: Adapted from an analysis of the U.S. DOT’s FY 2010 research budget by TRB staff. 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 41 RITA’s strategic plan for the five-year period from 2012 to 2017 supports the U.S. DOT’s strategic goals with corresponding research focus areas. The plan “takes a department-wide, systems-level view of the multimodal transportation system and presents strategies . . . that go beyond a modal- oriented and modal-funded perspective” (RITA 2012, 6). Important but limited stakeholder contributions, together with input from all the modal administrations, contributed to the plan, which strongly emphasizes per- formance measures, data-driven decision making, and outcomes. The 2012 passage of P.L. 112-141, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), eliminated earmarks, emphasized competition and peer review, and placed other constraints on the U.S. DOT’s research programs. In the committee’s judgment, these changes could enhance RITA’s ability both to influence the directions, priorities, and funding of the U.S. DOT’s research and to direct research toward departmental goals in ways not previously possible. Other Federal Departments Federal agencies other than the U.S. DOT provide substantial funding for research in surface transportation. DOE, for example, supports research on transportation fuels and propulsion systems. A 2009 report notes that DOE investments in transportation “dwarf those of U.S. DOT” (TRB 2009, 23); the report’s authors estimated that DOE’s research investment related to transportation exceeded $500 million for FY 2009. In sup- port of the defense establishment’s mission, DOD also funds a variety of transportation research activities. For example, the U.S. Transporta- tion Command is responsible for improving all aspects of transporta- tion, from manufacture to delivery to the soldier in the field; the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency sponsors revolutionary “high-risk– high-payoff” research aimed at bridging the gap between fundamen- tal discoveries and their military applications; and the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory supports research on pavements, structures, materials, and construction for arctic regions. Additional federal agencies support research related to transporta- tion, albeit at more modest levels than do DOE and DOD. They include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which funds research on environmental topics related to transportation, including the health effects of motor vehicle emissions and the development of emissions 

42 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future control technologies; and the National Science Foundation (NSF), which supports basic research in a wide range of areas relevant to transporta- tion, such as economics, information technology, and civil infrastructure systems (TRB 2008a; Nelson 2011). However, although departments other than the U.S. DOT contribute to the federal investment in surface transportation research, they do not identify transportation research explicitly in their programs and bud- gets. Rather, such research is subsumed by goals more directly linked to each agency’s mission. As a result, it is difficult to calculate how much the federal government invests in transportation research overall, how much is devoted specifically to surface transportation research, and the break- down of this research investment across federal departments. Estimates of this breakdown cited by Brach (2005) vary considerably because of data limitations and inconsistencies. The committee’s recommendations do not depend on a detailed analysis of recent budget data. Available data suggest, however, that the U.S. DOT’s contribution is far from being the dominant component of the nation’s federal investment in surface transportation research. State and Local Governments Many state DOTs support research related to their state’s transportation system. The California DOT (Caltrans), for example, has a comprehensive research program that explores innovations in methods, materials, and technologies, although this program has been shrinking in recent years, due in part to the state’s budget problems. The program aims to pro- vide effective management of public facilities and services, protect public investment in transportation infrastructure, and enhance and expand mobility options (http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech). Less populous states have more modest research programs, but with similar objectives. State DOT research programs are funded primarily through the fed- eral State Planning and Research (SP&R) program, which sets aside 2 percent from selected categories of federal highway aid; each state is required to use a minimum of 25 percent of its SP&R funding for research purposes. Total state DOT research funding actually exceeds this statutory minimum. In 2006, states spent an estimated $326 million on highway research—$160 million more than the SP&R minimum of 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 43 $166 million (TRB 2008a). Some observers have suggested that this extra amount has likely declined in recent years as a result of the recession and associated constraints on state budgets, but the committee could not obtain data to confirm or refute this supposition. Some anecdotal evidence suggests that local and regional agencies are becoming more involved in research, as in the case of the Chicago Tran- sit Authority’s collaborative multiyear research effort with the Univer- sity of Illinois–Chicago and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Progressive Railroading 2001). However, data limitations prevented the committee from assessing the extent and scope of such efforts. Industry Companies throughout the transportation sector support research initia- tives both individually and through partnership arrangements. Charac- terizing these private-sector research programs is challenging, however, because of the scope of the transportation domain, the often proprietary nature of the work, and the very limited disclosures of the financial and human capital being invested in the programs. Although individual auto- motive companies report substantial investments in research—on the order of $5 billion per company annually [e.g., see Ford Motor Company (2012)]—the inclusion of engineering and development in this figure can mask and likely dominates the investment in basic and applied research. An important phenomenon over the last three decades has been the advent of partnerships among private-sector entities, universities, and government agencies as a result of the 1984 Cooperative Research Act (http://www.uscar.org/guest/about/). These precompetitive research ini- tiatives, which sometimes include multiple competing companies, may be organized by either a public-sector or private-sector entity. Funding from the private sector is often in the form of in-kind contributions, but it may also include research contracts or direct contributions to aca- demic institutions. An example of such a collaboration, the 21st Cen- tury Truck Partnership (21CTP), is discussed below. In the case of the railroad industry, collaborative research efforts involving government, railroads, suppliers, and academia also contribute to solving problems facing a mature industry where “the easy-to-solve problems already have been addressed” (Tunna and Butler 2013, 3). 

44 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future Foundations Various U.S. and international foundations, including the Rockefeller Foundation and the Volvo Research and Education Foundation, fund surface transportation research at universities in the United States. The Volvo Research and Education Foundation, for example, funds ten Cen- ters of Excellence around the world, including centers at the University of California at Berkeley, Columbia University, the University of Southern California, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (http://www.vref.se/), to conduct research on future urban transport. These centers receive mod- est funding for a start-up period (less than $1 million per year for five years), which gives participating universities the opportunity to propose more ambitious research and education initiatives on topics that existing federal, state, or industry programs do not already address. SELECTED RESEARCH PROGRAMS In this section, brief descriptions of selected surface transportation– related research programs illustrate the range of research being con- ducted under various funding arrangements and with the involvement of diverse participants. The ongoing and completed major activities examined by the committee are presented below under the headings “Focused Research Programs of Limited Duration” and “Research Programs Funded on a Continuing Basis.” Individual programs are listed in Box 3-2. Research activities are not created equal. They vary in their character- istics, such as level of risk and time frame. Box 3-3 defines the terms for research types that are used throughout the transportation community and beyond. Focused Research Programs of Limited Duration Strategic Highway Research Program The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) was conceived in 1984 as a means of increasing the funding and focus of highway research (TRB 1984). Subsequently, over 200 stakeholders were involved in a two-year planning study funded by FHWA and the National Cooperative Highway 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 45 BOX 3-2 Examples of U.S. Research Programs Related to Surface Transportation Focused Research Programs of Limited Duration • Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) • National Automated Highway System Research Program (NAHSRP) • 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP) Research Programs Funded on a Continuing Basis • State Planning and Research (SP&R) Program • Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program • Association of American Railroads (AAR) Research Program • University Transportation Centers (UTC) Program • Exploratory Advanced Research (EAR) Program Research Program (NCHRP) and overseen by an expert committee. The resulting report (TRB 1986), together with an agreement by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to divert 0.25 percent from state federal-aid highway funds, led to con- gressional authorization of the SHRP applied research initiative in 1987. Some $150 million (or about $308 million in 2012 dollars) was provided over a five-year period for a highly strategic research program aimed at significantly improving the performance, durability, safety, and effi- ciency of the nation’s highways. Over 100 research products were developed, and an aggressive imple- mentation program, funded through federal and state contributions, encouraged the deployment of these products. Educational and tech- nical assistance activities were critical parts of the deployment process. A 2001 report provides examples from state DOTs of actual benefits derived from the implementation of SHRP products, noting that the 

46 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future BOX 3-3 Research Categories • Basic research. “The objective of basic research is to gain more comprehensive knowledge or understanding of the subject under study without specific applications in mind. Although basic research may not have specific applications as its goal, it can be directed [to] fields of present or potential interest. This is often the case with basic research performed by industry or mission-driven federal agencies” (NSB 2008, 4-9). • Applied research. “The objective of applied research is to gain knowledge or understanding to meet a specific recognized need. In industry, applied research includes investigations to discover new scientific knowledge that has specific commer- cial objectives with respect to products, processes, or services” (NSB 2008, 4-9). • Development. “Development is the systematic use of the knowledge or understanding, gained from research, [that is] directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, systems, or methods, including the design and development of prototypes and processes” (NSB 2008, 4-9). • Advanced transportation research. According to P.L. 109-59, the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), advanced transportation research lies at the interface between basic research and applied research, drawing on longer-term, higher- risk basic research that may offer potential breakthroughs for transportation systems. For example, advanced transportation research uses basic research results from nanotechnology for coatings to prevent metal fatigue in rails or bridges, or from molecular chemistry to create self-healing asphalt pavement. It also creates tools for analyzing and predicting the perfor- mance of transportation systems not yet envisioned, such as 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 47 new paradigms for public transportation. Finally, advanced transportation research informs policy alternatives for a future that is complex and uncertain; for example, it may identify the impacts of transportation on climate or the impli- cations of changing demographics for future travel behavior and demand. • Implementation (or deployment) in transportation. Imple- mentation in transportation is defined as the process through which the results of applied research and development are taken up in practical applications. Examples include the placement of safety systems (e.g., blind-spot warning) into vehicles; the incorporation of advanced design and measure- ment techniques (e.g., Superpave) into state DOT construc- tion standards; and the establishment of interoperability standards and systems for electronic tolling (e.g., E-ZPass). extent and pace of implementation of SHRP results “are the best indica- tors of the program’s success” (TRB 2001b, 37). Box 3-4 lists important characteristics of the SHRP initiative that may, in the committee’s judgment, provide valuable lessons for the strategic applied research component of future national transportation research frameworks. The ongoing SHRP 2 program, initiated in 2006, builds on the same research framework and operating model as did SHRP, sug- gesting that this framework and model are viewed by the stakeholders as effective for a major focused program of applied research. National Automated Highway System Research Program Transportation leaders have long envisioned wide-ranging benefits from the application, singly or combined, of rapidly advancing information, communications, and control technologies to the nation’s highway sys- tem. In 1991, P.L. 102-240, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi- ciency Act (ISTEA), included the Intelligent Vehicle–Highway Systems 

48 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future BOX 3-4 Important Characteristics of SHRP Initiative 1. The research was defined in terms of a clear vision of high- priority national needs. 2. The program was guided by experts and stakeholders from concept and definition, through selection of researchers and evaluation of results, to implementation. 3. The use of a special unit of the National Academies to man- age the program brought to bear the benefits of an established expert-committee process and mechanisms for impartial expert review at all stages of the program. 4. Partnerships with the user community and other stakeholders were integral throughout. 5. The program organization and decision-making structure had the flexibility to permit redirection of projects when research outcomes or funding changes so indicated. 6. Early buy-in by funding agencies and implementers (AASHTO, NCHRP, FHWA, and state DOTs) was critical. 7. The special time-constrained nature of the program avoided competition with, or duplication of, ongoing research programs. 8. The research framework as a whole was free of undue political influence. Act. The latter act required the U.S. DOT to develop, via the National Automated Highway System Research Program (NAHSRP), an auto- mated highway and vehicle prototype as a step toward fully automated intelligent vehicle–highway systems. The goal was to have the first fully automated roadway or an automated test track in operation by 1997. To implement this mandate, a public–private research consortium called the National Automated Highway System Consortium was formed in 1994, under the leadership of General Motors, with the aim of pool- ing financial resources, technical expertise, and marketplace experience 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 49 (TRB 1998). The consortium’s nine core members were drawn from aca- demia and the motor vehicle, highway, electronics, and communications industries. Program costs were budgeted at about $20 million per year ($31 million in 2012 dollars) for seven years, with members expected to pay at least 20 percent and the U.S. DOT providing the remainder. The consortium’s goal went beyond the ISTEA mandate by including the selection and testing of a preferred concept that would be the basis of future automated highway systems. In August 1997, the consortium successfully demonstrated automated- vehicle highway operation on a sequestered section of freeway in San Diego, California. But as a result of changing priorities and a shortfall of research funds, the U.S. DOT subsequently withdrew its support of the consortium and discontinued the NAHSRP. These actions were endorsed by an expert committee tasked with reviewing the NAHSRP, which con- cluded that • The task of developing, evaluating, and selecting a specification for a preferred fully automated highway system in less than seven years was unrealistic because of daunting technological, social, and institutional issues; • The consortium had a built-in conflict of interest, given its dual respon- sibilities to promote a shared vision of automated highways while also having to evaluate the prospects of implementing that vision; and • The required consensus-based management and decision-making struc- ture of the National Automated Highway System Consortium made it very difficult to respond to changing funding and program priorities (TRB 1998). Although the National Automated Highway System Consortium failed to meet its goal of specifying a preferred automated highway system, it did create new technologies that have been important in subsequent developments by the ITS Program (see the discussion on the ITS Pro- gram later in this section). 21st Century Truck Partnership Growing U.S. dependence on imported oil and increasing environmen- tal concern about global climate change have led recent administrations 

50 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future to support research programs aimed at improving the fuel efficiency of new vehicles. Recognizing that the heavy-duty truck and bus fleet of the United States consumes 20 to 25 percent of total surface transportation fuel, federal officials formed the 21CTP in 2000 as a cooperative research and development initiative comprising four federal agencies (DOE, U.S. DOT, DOD, and EPA) and 15 industrial partners. 21CTP was initially led by DOD’s U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research and Development Command, but in 2002 leadership was trans- ferred to DOE’s Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies (now the Office of Vehicle Technologies). The impetus behind the partnership was the hope that it would dramatically advance the technologies used in heavy-duty trucks and buses, thereby yielding a cleaner, safer, and more fuel-efficient generation of vehicles. The management of individual projects under the program rests with the individual agencies funding a given project, and these agencies continue to receive their appropriations from their relevant congres- sional committees. Thus there is no central overall control over budgets and accountability, a weakness highlighted in reviews of the partnership’s activities (NRC 2008, 2012). But while managing its own projects, lead agency DOE also organizes meetings, maintains the information-sharing infrastructure (e.g., websites and e-mail lists), and oversees the prepara- tion of technical white papers. The agencies use the information-sharing infrastructure to coordinate efforts and ensure that valuable research results are communicated, thereby reducing any overlap of activities among the agencies’ programs. NRC committees reviewed the partnership’s activities in 2007 and again in 2011 (NRC 2008, 2012). The more recent review found a key benefit of the partnership to be the “coordination of research programs directed toward the goal of reducing fuel usage and emissions while increasing the safety of heavy-duty vehicles. Federal involvement is bringing stakeholders to the table and accelerating the pace of technological development. . . . Thus the 21CTP is providing access to the extraordinary expertise and equipment [of] the federal laboratories, in addition to seed funding that draws financial commitment from the companies to push forward in new technology areas” (NRC 2012, 2). This review also found that the partnership “provides the United States with a forum in which member 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 51 agencies, in combination with industry, academia, and federal laborato- ries, can better coordinate their programs” (NRC 2012, 2). Both reports urged continuation of the partnership, while at the same time setting forth recommendations for improvement. The committee views the 21CTP as a useful model for engaging mul- tiple federal agencies and multiple industry partners in collaborative research activities within the constraints imposed by current institu- tional arrangements. Research Programs Funded on a Continuing Basis State Planning and Research Program The Federal Aid Highway Act and the Highway Revenue Act of 1956, which created the Highway Trust Fund and ushered in the Interstate highway era, gave new momentum to highway development and asso- ciated research. In particular, the dedicated trust fund gave stability and continuity not only to construction and maintenance, but also to research defined and directed by the states. Included in this research is the SP&R program, which has been a line-item authorization in all sur- face transportation acts since ISTEA in 1991. A minimum of 25 percent of federal SP&R funds allocated to a state for a fiscal year must be used for research purposes (planning, research and development, and tech- nology transfer). Under the most recent surface transportation act, the 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), this minimum research funding is estimated to be approximately $183 mil- lion a year for both FY 2013 and FY 2014 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ map21/docs/28aug_research_technology.pdf). In addition to supporting each state’s research program, SP&R funds are used by states to support collaborative research efforts. A portion (5.5 percent) of each state’s SP&R allocation is used to support the NCHRP, a collaborative research initiative created in 1962 that targets acute problem areas affecting highway planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance nationwide (http://www.trb.org/NCHRP/NCHRPOver view.aspx). Funds can be spent only for research problems approved by at least two-thirds of the states. State DOTs also use their SP&R funds to support collaborative research efforts through the Transportation Pooled 

52 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future Fund Program (http://www.pooledfund.org/Home/About), which pro- vides a mechanism for state DOTs, commercial entities, and FHWA pro- gram offices to combine their resources in pursuit of common goals. Pooled-fund studies may be initiated by federal, state, regional, or local transportation agencies and may involve private companies, foundations, and universities as research partners. The SP&R program has evolved over the years, with the early focus on highway construction gradually giving way to a multimodal and multi- disciplinary scope. Thus eligible activities under MAP-21 include not only research activities relating to the construction and maintenance of highway, public transportation, and intermodal transportation systems but also studies of the economy, safety, convenience, regulation, and taxa- tion of surface transportation systems (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/ spr.cfm). The program focuses on applied research, but it has also brought advances in areas of basic science (e.g., materials, communications, human factors, mathematical modeling, and social and behavioral science) to bear in developing solutions to transportation problems faced by the states. The committee is not aware of any comprehensive retrospective analy- ses of the benefits of the SP&R program to the states and the nation.1 However, the continuous improvements in surface transportation safety, infrastructure quality, construction efficiency, and operational methods testify, at least in part, to the effectiveness of this long-term research investment. Selected projects are showcased in the NCHRP Impacts on Practice one-page case studies (http://www.trb.org/NCHRP/NCHRP ImpactsonPractice.aspx). Transit Cooperative Research Program The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) was initiated in 1992 following the recommendation of an expert committee (TRB 1987). The program was established as part of the ISTEA implementation process by three cooperating organizations: FTA, which funds the program; the Transit Development Corporation, a nonprofit educational and research 1 AASHTO’s Research Advisory Committee supports work aimed at establishing a performance- measurement tool box and reporting system for research programs and projects (Krugler et al. 2006). 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 53 organization, which provides governance through the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection committee; and the National Academies, acting through TRB, which serves as program manager. The program has been funded by FTA since its inception, typically at around $10 mil- lion annually, although funding levels in FY 2012 and FY 2013 dropped significantly. The goal of TCRP is to help the transit industry develop near-term solu- tions to operating problems and adopt new technologies and approaches aimed at meeting the demands placed on the nation’s public transit sys- tems. Each year a broad solicitation of research problem statements is issued. Projects are selected for funding by the TCRP Oversight and Proj- ect Selection committee, which comprises representatives of the transit industry, government, academia, and other interested sectors. In other words, TCRP uses a bottom-up process to develop its research agenda. For each research topic selected, an expert committee is formed and then tasked with preparing the research problem statement, evaluating the pro- posals, and selecting the organization to conduct the research. Research topics are applied in nature; TCRP does not address longer-term basic and advanced research, including strategic research on future transit systems. TCRP has followed a similar model for program administration throughout its 20-year history, suggesting that stakeholders view this model as effective for short-term applied research. Intelligent Transportation Systems Program The ITS concept explores opportunities to develop safer, more efficient, more integrated, and more environmentally friendly transportation systems by drawing on developments in communications, computa- tion, sensing, and control. The ongoing ITS program had its origins in a national workshop on intelligent vehicle–highway systems (IVHS). Con- vened in March 1990 by a core group of representatives from govern- ment, academia, and industry, the workshop established broad support for, and agreement on the vision and goals of, a national IVHS program (TTI 1990). Following the workshop, the nonprofit corporation IVHS America was formed, and TRB subsequently issued a report address- ing the overall objectives of a national IVHS initiative and methods for effectively managing such a program (TRB 1991). 

54 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future With input from IVHS America, ISTEA included the Intelligent Vehicle–Highway Systems Act of 1991 (Title VI, Part B), which required the U.S. DOT to develop an IVHS strategic plan within one year. In May 1992, IVHS America (later renamed ITS America) published the con- gressionally mandated strategic plan, which was developed through a consensus-building process involving the entire IVHS community of stakeholders. P.L. 105-178, the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, required the U.S. DOT to maintain and update the national ITS Program plan developed by ITS America and the U.S. DOT; subse- quent reauthorizations of surface transportation legislation have speci- fied similar actions. The ITS program continues to receive approximately $100 million annually in federal funding. ITS research today includes partnerships between government and industry to develop platforms for connecting vehicles and to establish applications for crash avoidance, mobility, and eco-driving. Industry consortia such as the Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership and the Vehi- cle Infrastructure Integration Consortium develop precompetitive tech- nologies and related policies, and individual companies address driver interfaces and interventions in the driving process. Box 3-5 lists some of the more important characteristics of the ITS Program that, in the committee’s judgment, have contributed to the suc- cess of the initiative. Association of American Railroads Research Program For over 100 years, the American railroad industry has conducted research and testing in its search for better mechanical designs, materi- als, and operating methods. The benefits of consolidating much of this research into a central program of laboratories and proving grounds have long been recognized by the individual railroads. The Association of American Railroads (AAR), an industry trade group founded in 1934 that represents the major North American railroads, has played (and continues to play) a critical role in organizing committees responsible for much of the industry’s research. In addition, several AAR-sponsored university affiliates perform research, and vendors play an important role in developing new products. Individual railroads also conduct some of their own research. 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 55 BOX 3-5 Characteristics Contributing to ITS Program Success 1. The leadership of visionary professionals who, seeing a trans- formational opportunity, convened a planning workshop that included a broad range of public and private stakehold- ers and produced a vision, goals, and funding estimates for a national program clearly linked to national transportation goals; 2. The establishment of an independent stakeholder advisory and advocacy group for intelligent vehicle–highway systems (IVHS America, subsequently ITS America); 3. Through (1) and (2) above, engaging Congress and securing a stable source of funding and mandated federal leadership; 4. A continuing stakeholder-planned research effort that pro- vides funding for demonstration programs and requires evaluation of outcomes; 5. Flexibility to modify plans and directions based on techno- logical advances and research outcomes; 6. Strong federal leadership; 7. Emphasis on communication of benefits to Congress and the general public; 8. Stability and continuity of federal funding over more than 20 years; 9. Promise of a major market opportunity for the private sector (especially the vehicle and communications indus- tries), thus spurring investment; and 10. Continuing investment in human capital to educate the future professional and technical workforce. 

56 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future Most acceptance testing for the U.S. railroad industry is centralized at the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI), in Pueblo, Colo- rado. A subsidiary of AAR, TTCI is a transportation research and testing organization that operates the U.S. DOT–owned Transportation Tech- nology Center; the center possesses specialized facilities for testing roll- ing stock, vehicle and track components, and safety devices. Examples of efforts involving AAR and TTCI include cooperative testing, research, and standards development by industry and govern- ment to improve railroad tank car safety through improved design (Barkan et al. 2013) and advances in track support and management systems to enhance the safety and efficiency of rail infrastructure (Sussman et al. 2013). In the latter case, balancing the potentially competing goals of safety and efficiency is an important driver for the railroad industry. Railroad industry research priorities are derived from a technology “roadmap” that is revisited annually at a research review conducted by TTCI. Input is provided by the Federal Railroad Administration, rail- road company officials, and TTCI staff. In addition to addressing specific research topics, the roadmap outlines research strategies. For example, the 2012 roadmap identified the role of technology implementation and technology-driven productivity improvements in meeting demand for increased railroad capacity. It also noted that coordinated and collab- orative research by stakeholders will be required to realize the objectives defined in the roadmap. University Transportation Centers Program The UTC program was established under P.L. 100-17, the Surface Trans- portation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, which autho- rized the competitive award of a center in each of 10 federal regions. Each center was funded at $1 million annually (approximately $2 mil- lion in 2012 dollars) with a requirement for a 100 percent funding match from nonfederal sources; with few exceptions, this match was provided by state DOT funds. In subsequent surface transportation authoriza- tions, additional centers were established by congressional earmarking (i.e., without competition or merit review). In 2005, the Safe, Account- able, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized up to $76.7 million a year for four years for 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 57 as many as 60 UTCs; 20 were competitively selected in 2006, and 40 were congressionally mandated in the act without competition. The 100 per- cent nonfederal-match requirement was realized in most cases, and state DOTs continued to be important providers of these matching funds. In 2011, the U.S. DOT responded to concerns about earmarking by conducting a new competition for UTCs, which culminated in fund- ing awards for 22 centers in January 2012. MAP-21 continues the UTC program, but the legislation requires a more rigorous and transparent recompetition for centers. MAP-21 calls for up to 35 UTCs of various types and funding levels, with each center tied to one of the U.S. DOT strategic goals. The objectives of the centers are to conduct basic and applied research that peers or experts agree should advance transpor- tation knowledge, provide multidisciplinary education programs, and establish technology-transfer programs that lead to implementation. In general, transportation-related research at universities, such as the work supported by the UTC program, provides two broad benefits. First, the research directly produces new knowledge to help solve transporta- tion problems; see, for example, RITA (2009). Second, it aids faculty in educating the next generation of transportation leaders and other pro- fessionals. Since the inception of the UTC program, more than 100 U.S. universities have become involved in research and education in transpor- tation. Many of these universities have used their UTC as a mechanism for building their transportation research and education capacity, while others (with strong established programs) have used the UTC funding for new initiatives aimed at broadening the scope and interdisciplinary nature of their activities. Overall, the UTCs have had an important impact on transportation education. During the first four years of SAFETEA-LU, over 750 master’s and doctoral programs were offered by UTC universities, and almost 9,000 master’s and 1,000 doctoral degrees were awarded (RITA 2011). Over the years, various groups have expressed concern that the UTC program fails to take advantage of universities’ expertise in basic and advanced research; see, for example, TRB (1993). In 2011, RITA, which administers the UTC program, conducted a preliminary survey of UTC performance indicators for the first four years of SAFETEA-LU. Although not final, the 2011 data suggest that the UTC program in general is biased 

58 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future toward applied research (RITA 2011); a similar bias had previously been noted in highway-related projects supported by the UTC program (TRB 2008a). Many observers have attributed this bias, at least in part, to the funding match provided by applications-oriented DOTs. Others have suggested that the large number of universities involved can dilute the funding to the point that multidisciplinary, basic or advanced research programs of critical size cannot be supported. As a result, the focus is on small programs of applied research, typically involving one professor and one or two graduate students who target incremental solutions to narrowly defined problems. Exploratory Advanced Research Program FHWA’s Exploratory Advanced Research (EAR) program was estab- lished by SAFETEA-LU in 2005 with funding designated for “longer- term, higher-risk, breakthrough research with the potential for dramatic long-term improvements to transportation systems” (http://www.fhwa. dot.gov/advancedresearch/). The program bridges basic research (simi- lar to research funded by NSF) and applied research (similar to studies funded by state DOTs). FHWA has issued broad agency announcements for the EAR program soliciting research proposals in selected focus areas based on the autho- rizing legislation, stakeholder input, initial-stage research, and FHWA’s strategic needs. The six solicitations issued between 2007 and 2012 resulted in the awarding of 50 research projects on 37 topics. Research partnerships are encouraged to stimulate new approaches to problem solving, and awards may be either contracts or cooperative agreements (in which case a nonfederal cost share of a least 20 percent is required). The projects awarded through 2012 total $42 million in FHWA funds, with $17 million in matching funds. The research involves multidisci- plinary teams at 33 academic institutions, 16 private companies, 10 state and local agencies, and seven federal laboratories (http://www.fhwa.dot. gov/advancedresearch/). The EAR program is an open competition that offers proposers the opportunity to develop their own ideas, subject to the constraints imposed by the focus areas. Writing shortly after the EAR program was established, an expert committee on highway safety research called the 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 59 program “a potentially important first step toward a more balanced FHWA research portfolio encompassing both short-term applied and longer-term advanced/exploratory research” (TRB 2008b, 45). STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF CURRENT RESEARCH FRAMEWORK The committee drew on the preceding examples of research activities and on the personal experience of its members to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the current U.S. research framework for surface trans- portation, as discussed in the following sections. Strengths Two major strengths of the current framework are the robust portfolio of applied research and the role played by research in educating future transportation professionals. Robust Portfolio of Applied Research Over the years, a diverse array of applied research activities has led to important improvements in the nation’s surface transportation system. Incremental improvements, particularly when compounded over time, have resulted in safer and more fuel-efficient automobiles, safer road designs, more effective and customer-friendly public transportation ser- vices, and improved freight rail operations; see, for example, TRB (1996). Applied research has been, and continues to be, supported both by the public and private sectors, and it engages a variety of research providers. Some applied research activities are continuing in nature, while others are designed to be of limited duration. Many of the initiatives adopt models emphasizing the importance of stakeholder engagement throughout the research process, from initial identification of needs to attainment of new knowledge to the ultimate deployment of new or improved technologies. The longevity of continuing initiatives, such as the SP&R program, the cooperative research programs, and the ITS program, reflects their value to stakeholders and funding organizations. However, efforts to measure program benefits in terms of return on investment or other metrics tend 

60 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future to be narrowly focused, as documented in the “Research Pays Off” feature published periodically in TRB’s TR News. Examples of more compre- hensive program assessments, such as the recent examination of SHRP’s Superpave® initiative (McDaniel et al. 2011), are relatively rare. The highway sector’s research program has some effective attributes and forms a sound basis for structuring a modally focused transporta- tion research initiative, although the program is limited in scope (no basic research) and lacks the cohesion resulting from an overall research agenda. Nonetheless, the various research efforts address infrastructure, vehicles, fuels, users, and the interactions among them, and these efforts receive important levels of research investment not only by federal and state gov- ernments, but also by the automotive and construction industries. Activi- ties include focused advanced research, notably through FHWA’s EAR program, as well as applied research and development. Research partner- ships, such as 21CTP, engage different groups with diverse skills and expe- rience. Efforts such as FHWA’s Every Day Counts initiative (http://www. fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/) and the Local Technical Assistance Pro- gram (http://www.ltap.org/) facilitate knowledge transfer and encourage the implementation of research results. At the federal level, a chief scientist within FHWA advises the agency on its research activities, and external advice is provided by the Research and Technology Coordinating Com- mittee of the National Academies (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/ cp/projectview.aspx?key=48799). Educating Future Transportation Professionals The U.S. DOT has recognized the importance of educating future trans- portation professionals, and through its UTC program the department has expanded resources devoted to transportation education over the past 25 years. As a result, the number of universities offering training in surface transportation has increased substantially, as has the number of graduates from these programs. In the committee’s view, there is con- siderable value in continuing to recognize the links between university research and education in surface transportation, even as the U.S. DOT seeks to improve the cost-effectiveness of the UTC program. As noted in a report on recruiting, training, and retaining qualified workers for transportation and transit agencies, “new workforce skills [are needed] to 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 61 keep pace with new methods and advanced technologies” as the “chang- ing mission and broader responsibilities of [today’s state DOTs] require a workforce capable of addressing many issues other than engineering” (TRB 2003, 3). The opportunity to participate in research is an excellent way for students to acquire such skills. Weaknesses The committee identified four major areas for improvement in the U.S. transportation research framework: • Recognizing the importance of basic and advanced research, • Building value through research partnerships and enhanced coordi- nation, • Linking to national goals, and • Quantifying the impacts of research activities and the associated return on investment. Recognizing the Importance of Basic and Advanced Research The robust portfolio of applied research outlined above contrasts sharply with the paucity of basic and advanced research activities devoted to surface transportation. Applied research projects have led to important improvements over the years but, in the committee’s judgment, such efforts will not by themselves produce the transformations in transporta- tion needed to meet emerging long-term global challenges, such as climate change and sustainability. What is generally considered more appropriate for the nation’s port- folio of surface transportation research is a balance of activities with different time frames and different levels of risk. Skinner, for exam- ple, suggests including both “research aimed at incremental gains in current technologies and higher-risk research aimed at breakthrough technologies,” although he notes that “no one knows what the ideal mix should be” (Skinner 1997, 5). Other authors have made specific sugges- tions, however, based on expert judgment. For example, the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee recommended that “at least one-quarter of FHWA’s research expenditure should be invested in [fundamental long-term] research” (TRB 2001a, 6). 

62 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future The federal role in supporting basic and advanced research is gener- ally acknowledged, given its high-risk and long-term nature. In addition, significant improvements in the understanding of how the components of transportation systems work or the adoption of new technologies have often relied on basic research, albeit in other fields. Examples include traffic flow theory, which draws on basic research in game theory and fluid flow theory (e.g., Bell 2000, Greenberg 1959); behavioral or con- sumer choice modeling, which draws on basic research in economics (e.g., Simon 1955); electronic tolling, which draws on developments in military technology (Rieback et al. 2006) and research in economics (Vickrey 1963); and ITS, which draws on research into sensors and con- trol (e.g., Varaiya 1993). Committee members point out, however, that stability and continu- ity of funding are needed to take full advantage of the potential benefits offered by basic and advanced research in surface transportation. The U.S. DOT has failed to provide sustained support for such research, how- ever, at least until recently. The department’s first attempt at an advanced research activity was the Transportation Advanced Research Program, launched in 1973 by the Office of the Secretary. But it was discontinued after several years, following a change in U.S. DOT leadership. Since 2005, FHWA’s EAR program has provided dedicated funding for advanced research, but its scope is limited to highways, rather than surface trans- portation more broadly, and funding is limited (about $14 million a year). The UTC program, meanwhile, focuses on applied research, as noted ear- lier, despite universities’ expertise in basic and advanced research. Research investments by federal agencies outside of the U.S. DOT— notably DOE, DOD, EPA, and NSF—may offer opportunities to leverage ongoing basic and advanced research relevant to surface transportation. However, the committee found little evidence that the U.S. DOT has tried to apply these federally funded activities in support of its own mission, much less sought to influence the research agendas of these other agencies. Building Value Through Research Partnerships and Enhanced Coordination Research partnerships stimulate creative thinking by allowing research- ers with different perspectives and areas of expertise to work together. 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 63 Such partnerships also enable organizations with similar objectives to leverage scarce resources (e.g., by gaining access to specialized research and testing facilities). Various examples illustrate the benefits of research partnerships that target surface transportation. Both NCHRP and the Transportation Pooled Fund Program permit state DOTs (and others) to combine their resources in pursuit of solutions to highway-related problems of com- mon interest. 21CTP, which engages partners from federal agencies and private industry, has accelerated the pace of technological development for heavy-duty vehicles (NRC 2012). Within the private sector, the U.S. Council for Automotive Research, a partnership formed in 1992 by Ford Motor Company, General Motors, and Chrysler Group LLC, has sup- ported precompetitive research on topics of broad interest to the U.S. auto industry, such as advanced batteries and vehicle recycling.2 Despite its partnerships with state DOTs on highway-related research, the U.S. DOT currently plays only a marginal role in partnerships within the federal research community. For example, the U.S. DOT did not engage in The Science of Science Policy: A Federal Research Roadmap, an initiative conducted under the auspices of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. A collaborative effort among multiple federal agencies,3 this initiative explored the potential for a more rigor- ous and quantitative science and technology policy (Koizumi 2011). In recent years, there have been no sustained and comprehensive efforts to coordinate national surface transportation research, although some coordination of government-funded research activities does occur. For example, the U.S. DOT’s Human Factors Coordinating Committee 2 Private-sector involvement in precompetitive research partnerships such as 21CTP and the U.S. Council for Automotive Research has grown over the past 25 years in response to changes in antitrust laws. 3 The Roadmap initiative drew participants from DOE, NSF, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Commerce, DOD, EPA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs (http://scienceofsciencepolicy.net/sites/all/themes/sosp_theme3/userfiles/SoSP_Road map.pdf). 

64 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future (http://hfcc.dot.gov/about/index.html) brings together representatives from the various U.S. DOT administrations and from other federal departments to address crosscutting human factors issues in transporta- tion. RITA is responsible for research coordination across the U.S. DOT, but funding for this effort is modest. Although research partnerships in general offer the advantage of bringing more resources to bear on a problem, there can be trade-offs. In the case of the UTC program, for example, the nonfederal match is frequently provided by state DOTs or industry to help develop solu- tions to narrowly focused problems that require immediate solutions. As a result of this type of partnership, the UTC program tends to favor applied research, thereby failing to draw on universities’ unique strengths in basic and advanced research. Linking to National Goals As discussed above in “Selected Research Programs,” the United States lacks a cohesive national research framework for surface transporta- tion that is clearly linked to overall societal goals. Rather, the current framework is ad hoc in nature and comprises a diverse assortment of research efforts, often modally focused, many of which are responsive to the specific needs of different groups but do not address the transporta- tion system as a whole. The bottom-up processes used to establish research agendas for pro- grams that address particular stakeholder needs (e.g., the TCRP and the AAR Research Program) do not mesh naturally with a top-down agenda- setting process that targets societal goals. Hence the links between bottom- up research agendas and broad national goals are often tenuous at best. Several major research programs of limited duration, such as SHRP, have a far more strategic perspective; they often define their research agendas in the context of a clear vision of national needs. Nonetheless, many of these programs have a strong modal focus and, as a result, address a narrowly defined set of solutions focused on a single mode. For example, the U.S. Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles program in the 1990s tar- geted national goals for energy conservation through improved automobile fuel efficiency, but it did not explore alternative, multimodal, systems-level approaches to reducing energy usage for personal transportation. 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 65 Some transportation-related research is widely recognized as key to achieving certain societal goals, such as research on the lightweight materials and powertrains needed to meet new corporate average fuel economy standards, which target reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and oil imports. By contrast, research relating to transportation infrastruc- ture and its use, including programs focused on acquiring a better under- standing of travel-related behavior, receives far less attention. Attention to this type of research is notably lacking from high-level policy makers, such as those at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, despite potentially significant systemwide benefits. This situation is par- tially the result of the U.S. DOT’s limited engagement with the broad federal research community. Quantifying the Impacts of Research Activities and the Associated Return on Investment As discussed in Chapter 2, realizing tangible value from research invest- ments is a critical attribute of a national transportation research frame- work. In practice, however, efforts by the U.S. surface transportation community to quantify the impact and return on investment of research have been limited in scope, as illustrated by research programs described in this chapter. Although stakeholders appear to view a number of these programs as effective, robust and quantitative assessments of effective- ness are frequently lacking. AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Research is supporting efforts to establish a performance-measurement tool box (Krugler et al. 2006), but in the committee’s view, more such efforts are needed. Measuring return on investment is unquestionably a challeng- ing task. In the absence of such quantitative information, however, policy makers, research sponsors, and others cannot take full advantage of the lessons learned from experience about what types of research programs are of greatest value to the nation. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT Surface transportation research is undertaken and funded by many groups, each with somewhat different perspectives. The initiation, con- tinuity, and longevity of research programs are influenced by funding 

66 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future constraints and societal and technological changes. Against this back- drop, the committee’s examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the current ad hoc framework for surface transportation research in the United States has led it to identify four areas of insufficiency in which major improvements are needed: • Insufficient and erratic support for basic and advanced research aimed at conceiving innovative solutions to transportation problems; • Insufficient emphasis on research coordination and partnerships, particularly across the federal research community; • Insufficient attention to multimodal systems-level and policy research in support of national and societal goals; and • Insufficient effort to quantify research impact and return on investment. The next chapter explores transportation research in other nations, with an emphasis on areas in which the current U.S. framework is lacking. REFERENCES Abbreviations FHWA Federal Highway Administration NRC National Research Council NSB National Science Board RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration TRB Transportation Research Board TTI Texas A&M Transportation Institute Barkan, C. P. L., M. R. Saat, F. Gonzalez III, and T. T. Treichel. 2013. Cooperative Research in Tank Car Safety Design. TR News, No. 286, May–June, pp. 12–19. Bell, M. G. H. 2000. A Game Theory Approach to Measuring the Performance Reliabil- ity of Transport Networks. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 533–545. 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. 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 67 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 Pro- gram Administration in Europe and Asia. Report FHWA-PL-09-015. Federal Highway Administration. http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl09015/pl09015.pdf. Ford Motor Company. 2012. 10-K Annual Report 2012. http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. Greenberg, H. 1959. An Analysis of Traffic Flow. Operations Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 79–85. Koizumi, K. 2011. A Perspective from the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Pre- sented to Committee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transporta- tion, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., July 19. Krugler, P., M. N. Walden, B. Hoover, Y. D. Lin, and S. Tucker. 2006. Performance Mea- surement Tool Box and Reporting System for Research Programs and Projects. Final report, NCHRP Project 20-6. NCHRP Web-Only Document 127. http://onlinepubs. trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_W127.pdf. McDaniel, R. S., R. B. Leahy, G. A. Huber, J. S. Moulthrop, and T. Ferragut. 2011. The Super- pave Mix Design System: Anatomy of a Research Program. Final report, NCHRP Proj- ect 9-42. NCHRP Web-Only Document 186. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ nchrp/nchrp_W186.pdf. Nelson, P. P. 2011. A Perspective Motivated by National Science Foundation Research Opportunities. Presented to Committee on National Research Frameworks: Applica- tion to Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Oct. 24. NRC. 2008. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12258.html. NRC. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. National Acad- emies Press, Washington, D.C. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13288.html. NSB. 2008. Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. National Science Board, Washington, D.C. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/c4/c4s.htm. Progressive Railroading. 2001. CTA Taps MIT, UIC for Research Projects, Oct. 9. http:// www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/CTA-taps-MIT-UIC-for- research-projects--10591. Rieback, M., B. Crispo, and A. S. Tanenbaum. 2006. The Evolution of RFID Technology. IEEE Pervasive Computing, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 62–69. RITA. 2009. University Transportation Centers Program: Points of Pride 2009. U.S. Department of Transportation. http://www.rita.dot.gov/utc/publications/points_ of_pride/2009. RITA. 2011. University Transportation Centers Performance Indicators Years 1–4. Prelimi- nary draft. U.S. Department of Transportation. 

68 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future RITA. 2012. U.S. Department of Transportation Research, Development, and Technology Strategic Plan FY 2012. U.S. Department of Transportation. Simon, H. A. 1955. A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Econom- ics, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 99–118. Skinner, R. E., Jr. 1997. Ten Theses About Transportation Research. TR News, No. 189, March–April, pp. 3–5. Sussman, T., D. Read, J. Choros, and S. M. Farritor. 2013. Gaining Track Support to Improve Track Safety, Efficiency, and the Competitiveness of the Rail Industry. TR News, No. 286, May–June, pp. 12–19. TRB. 1984. Special Report 202: America’s Highways: Accelerating the Search for Innovation. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. TRB. 1986. Strategic Highway Research Program: Research Plans. Final Report. NCHRP Project 20-20. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C. TRB. 1987. Special Report 213: Research for Public Transit: New Dimensions. 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. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. TRB. 1996. Transportation Research Board: 1920–1995. TR News, No. 182, January– February. TRB. 1998. Special Report 253: National Automated Highway System Research Program: A Review. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. TRB. 2001a. Special Report 261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technol- ogy. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubs/sr/sr261.pdf. TRB. 2001b. Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Con- gestion, Improving Quality of Life. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. TRB. 2003. Special Report 275: The Workforce Challenge: Recruiting, Training, and Retaining Qualified Workers for Transportation and Transit Agencies. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.trb. org/onlinepubs/sr/sr275.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. 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. 

Current State of U.S. Surface Transportation Research 69 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. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ sr/sr299.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. Tunna, J., and D. Butler. 2013. Introduction: Railroads and Research Sharing Track. TR News, No. 286, May–June, p. 3. Varaiya, P. 1993. Smart Cars on Smart Roads: Problems of Control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 195–207. Vickrey, W. 1963. Pricing in Urban and Suburban Transport. American Economic Review, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 452–465.