Click for next page ( 71


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 70
4 Transportation Research Frameworks in Other Countries As part of its charge, the committee was asked to identify and assess prom- ising features of other nations’ transportation research frameworks. To carry out this task, it examined eight transportation research organiza- tions in Europe and Asia (see Table 4-1). Several of these organizations hosted the 2008 scan tour on transportation research program admin- istration in Europe and Asia that was a precursor to the present study (Elston et al. 2009). This chapter outlines the committee’s information-gathering strategy and provides overviews of the research organizations listed in Table 4-1. It then presents certain of their research frameworks’ key features that, if adopted in the United States, could potentially enhance the productivity of investments in U.S. surface transportation research. Attention is given in particular to those areas identified in Chapter 3 that could especially benefit from such enhancement: establishing a robust national program of basic and advanced research, exploring additional opportunities for coop- eration and coordination, strengthening policy and systems-level analyses in support of societal goals, and quantifying research impacts and associ- ated return on investment. The chapter concludes with a categorization and brief discussion of the lessons learned from other countries. Throughout its analysis, the committee was mindful of the factors identified in Chapter 1 as potentially contributing to the failure of policy transfer efforts. COMMITTEE’S STRATEGY FOR GATHERING INFORMATION The committee focused its information-gathering efforts on countries with mature transportation systems (rather than on developing nations) and on organizations with established transportation-related research 70

OCR for page 70
Transportation Research Frameworks in Other Countries 71 TABLE 4-1 Transportation Research Organizations in Countries That Provided Information on Their Research Frameworks 2008 Scan Country Organization Tour Host European Union Transport Directorate, Directorate–General for Research and Yes Innovation, European Commission France Institute of Science and Technology for Transport, Development, Yesa and Networks (IFSTTAR) National Research Agency (ANR) No Netherlands Rijkswaterstaat (RWS) Center for Transport and Navigation Yes SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research Yes United Kingdom Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) No Japan Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism (MLIT) Yes South Korea Korea Transport Institute (KOTI) Yes aIFSTTAR’s precursor organizations, the French Central Laboratory of Roads and Bridges and the French National Institute for Transport Safety and Research, hosted the 2008 scan team. programs. This strategy made the best use of available time and resources, allowing the committee to target foreign research practices most likely to benefit surface transportation research in the United States. The countries visited on the 2008 scan tour provided useful pointers as policy makers considered enhancing the U.S. surface transportation research framework (Elston et al. 2009). Hence, in the present study, the committee devoted considerable effort to obtaining more detailed information about these countries’ research frameworks, including any changes since the scan. The committee also expanded its information gathering to include countries not visited on the 2008 scan tour. Committee members’ indi- vidual knowledge informed this activity, as did the desk scan (Harder 2007) conducted before the tour. The Harder report reviewed transporta- tion research programs in countries [including Canada, Mexico, Brazil, European Union (EU) member nations, South Africa, India, South Korea, Japan, China, Australia, and New Zealand] with substantial experience in related administrative activities. Two organizations not included on the 2008 scan tour—the United Kingdom’s Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) and France’s National

OCR for page 70
72 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future Research Agency (ANR)—were judged to be of particular interest in the context of the committee’s work. Because RSSB is a private- sector research organization, its inclusion brought a perspective largely absent from the scan tour, which focused almost exclusively on public-sector research entities. ANR was of interest because of its support both of fundamental and industrial research and its emphasis on research quality. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS Transport Directorate, Directorate–General for Research and Innovation, European Commission The EU is an economic and political coalition of 27 member states oper- ating through a series of supranational institutions. The European Com- mission, the executive body of the EU, sets objectives and priorities for action, proposes legislation to the European Parliament, and manages and implements the EU’s policies and budget. All the EU’s research-related initiatives are grouped under the Framework Program (FP), a common framework designed to respond to the community’s growth, competitive- ness, and employment goals. The ongoing Seventh Framework Program for Research and Tech- nological Development (FP7) is the EU’s main instrument for funding research. The Transport Directorate, contained within the European Commission’s Directorate–General for Research and Innovation, is responsible for the FP7’s transportation research.1 The total bud- get for the seven-year (2007 to 2013) FP7 program is approximately € 50 billion ($65 billion), of which € 4.16 billion ($5.4 billion) is devoted explicitly to transportation.2, 3 This transportation funding 1 Information on the FPs was obtained from Rogge (2011), from discussions with Rogge and others at the committee’s July 2011 workshop, from Damiani (2012), and from the FP7 website (http:// ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm). Additional references to specific aspects of FP pro- grams are provided in the text. 2 The budget data provided in this section on transportation research organizations are given in the currency units of the original source materials, including presentations at the committee’s workshops; approximate conversions to US$ are provided as needed. 3 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/understand_en.html.

OCR for page 70
Transportation Research Frameworks in Other Countries 73 is divided among four subthemes, one of which is sustainable surface transportation.4 In general the FP aims to complement, not replace, national innova- tion programs. Hence it seeks to create “European added value” in the innovation process. Such added value may include expanding the funds available to national researchers to address common European issues, growing knowledge more rapidly through pooling of the competencies of researchers in different nations, and supporting larger projects and research portfolios than could be funded by individual nations (Arnold 2005). The focus is on precompetitive research, with the development of marketable products left largely to individual companies. In recent years, however, European industry has sought more market-oriented research within the FP, and special funding mechanisms have been estab- lished that are aimed at engaging industrial partners. These mechanisms include research public–private partnerships (PPPs), such as the Euro- pean Green Cars Initiative, as well as a dedicated funding instrument for small- and medium-sized enterprises. Institute of Science and Technology for Transport, Development, and Networks, France The Institute of Science and Technology for Transport, Development and Networks (IFSTTAR) is a national transportation research institute funded by the French government.5 It was established on January 1, 2011, through a merger of the French Central Laboratory of Roads and Bridges and the French National Institute for Transport Safety and Research. Overseen by two government departments (the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport, and Housing and the Ministry of Higher Education and Research), IFSTTAR conducts applied research in the fields of transportation, infrastructure, natural hazards, and urban issues. The aim of the institute, whose budget for 2011 was €120 million 4 The other subthemes are aeronautics and air transportation; horizontal activities (for the imple- mentation of the transportation program); and Galileo (support for the European Global Satellite Navigation System). 5 Information about IFSTTAR was obtained from Jacob (2011), from discussions with Jacob at the committee’s July 2011 workshop, and from the institute’s website (www.ifsttar.fr).

OCR for page 70
74 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future ($156 million), is to improve the living conditions of French residents and promote society’s sustainable development.6 National Research Agency, France ANR is a public research-funding organization established by the French government in 2005 to fund research projects on a competitive basis, thereby bringing more flexibility to the country’s research system.7 The agency supports both fundamental and industrial research in virtually all scientific fields. Funds are available for public research organizations, including universities, and for private companies, the latter through PPPs. ANR’s total turnover for 2011 was €770 million ($1 billion). Programs are organized under six thematic areas; programs addressing sustainable trans- portation and mobility are included within the sustainable-energy area. Rijkswaterstaat Center for Transport and Navigation, the Netherlands Rijkswaterstaat (RWS), the executive arm of the Dutch Ministry of Infra- structure and the Environment, is responsibility for developing and man- aging the Netherlands’ main highway and waterway networks.8 Its goals are to ensure “dry feet, sufficient clean water, smooth and safe traffic flows on the nation’s roads and waterways, and reliable and useful information” (RWS 2010, 9). The total RWS budget for 2010 was €5 billion ($6.5 bil- lion), of which €40 to €60 million ($50 to $80 million) was devoted to research. The Center for Transport and Navigation, located in Delft, is one of RWS’s five national centers of excellence. In recent years, RWS has transitioned from being an organization that conducted some research to being almost exclusively a client for research 6 IFSTTAR also conducts expert appraisals, offers consulting services, promotes innovation trans- fers, and participates in certification and standardization activities. 7 Information about ANR was obtained from Jacob (2011), from discussions with Jacob at the committee’s July 2011 workshop, and from the agency’s website (http://www.agence-nationale- recherche.fr/). 8 Information about RWS was obtained from a conference call with Roger Demkes (Head of Knowledge Management at the Center for Transport and Navigation) on December 1, 2011; from discussions with Joris Al, Max Klok, and Jan van der Waard in 2011 at the 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and from the RWS 2010 annual report (RWS 2010).

OCR for page 70
Transportation Research Frameworks in Other Countries 75 conducted by others. Staff members now act much like consultants, pro- viding information on the availability of knowledge and on solutions to specific problems. The focus is on improving the day-to-day operations of the country’s transportation systems, including their asset management and life-cycle analyses. SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, the Netherlands SWOV, founded in 1962, is the major Dutch road-safety organization devoted to scientific research.9 The institute’s average annual turnover is €5 to €6 million ($7 to $8 million), 75 to 80 percent of which comes from grants from the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environ- ment; the remainder is provided by remunerations from domestic and international assignments. Rail Safety and Standards Board, United Kingdom Established in 2003, RSSB is a not-for-profit private company owned and funded by major stakeholders in the United Kingdom’s railroad indus- try, including the infrastructure manager (Network Rail), passenger operating companies, freight operating companies, rolling-stock leasing companies, infrastructure contractors, and suppliers.10 The government (Department for Transport) and regulator (Office of Rail Regulation) are involved as observers. The Department for Transport also provides approximately $15 to $20 million a year to support the two industrywide R&D programs managed by RSSB. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism, Japan Three Japanese government ministries have R&D budgets for transpor- tation: the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism 9 Information about SWOV was obtained from Wegman (2011), from discussions with Wegman at the committee’s July 2011 workshop and at the 90th TRB Annual Meeting in 2011, and from the institute’s website (http://www.swov.nl/UK/Profiel/Inhoud/about_swov.htm). 10 Information about RSSB was obtained from Jack (2011), from discussions with Jack at the com- mittee’s July 2011 workshop, and from the board’s website (http://www.rssb.co.uk/AboutUs/ Pages/a_guide.aspx).

OCR for page 70
76 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future (MLIT); the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry; and the Minis- try of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. MLIT is the most technologically oriented of these ministries.11 It is responsible for using, developing, and conserving land in Japan in an integrated and systematic way; for creating the infrastructure needed to attain these goals; and for implementing transportation policies.12 MLIT comprises a number of bureaus, including those for policy; water and disaster management; roads; railroads; civil aviation; and ports and harbors. In 2011, MLIT received 1.4 percent [¥51 billion ($600 million)] of the Japanese government’s total R&D budget of ¥3.64 trillion ($43 billion). Korea Transport Institute The Korea Transport Institute (KOTI), established in 1985, is an official research agency of the South Korean government.13 Its mission is to pro- vide recommendations for the nation’s transportation policy and to cre- ate an optimal transportation system through specialized research and technological innovation. KOTI’s activities cover many aspects of trans- portation, including green growth, comprehensive transportation, indi- vidual modes (road, rail, and aviation), safety, surveys, economics, and logistics. Three funding sources each contribute in approximately equal mea- sure to the institute’s annual budget of about $35 million: (a) funds from the Prime Minister’s research councils; (b) funds from commissioned projects for the Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs; and (c) funds from a variety of other sources, including local governments, the Korea Railroad Construction Corporation, the Korea Aviation Corpora- tion, the Korea Highway Corporation, and, most importantly, the Korea Institute of Construction and Transportation Technology Evaluation 11 Information about MLIT was obtained from Morichi (2011), from discussions with Morichi at the committee’s October 2011 workshop, and from the ministry’s website (http://www.mlit.go.jp/ en/index.html). 12 See MLIT brochure (http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000047294.pdf). 13 Information about KOTI was obtained from Oh (2011), from discussions with Oh at the com- mittee’s October 2011 workshop and at the 90th and 91st TRB Annual Meetings (2011 and 2012, respectively), and from the institute’s website (http://english.koti.re.kr/).

OCR for page 70
Transportation Research Frameworks in Other Countries 77 and Planning (KICTEP).14 KOTI competes with research institutes, uni- versities, and the private sector for funding from the second and third listed sources. APPROACHES TO RESEARCH FUNCTIONS This section highlights successful foreign research practices that could potentially benefit surface transportation research in the United States. The discussion is organized according to the research functions identi- fied in Chapter 2, with one additional function added at the section’s end. Identification of the Role of Research in Achieving Societal Goals Several of the organizations listed above employ research-planning pro- cesses that establish clear links between transportation research activities and societal goals. For example, the Lisbon Strategy adopted in 2000 included an objective that the EU should become the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. A wide- ranging set of pertinent goals relating to employment, innovation, enter- prise, and the environment were translated into targets to be achieved in support of the overall objective. The European Commission’s Transport Directorate used these goals and targets to guide transportation research in FP7; for example, the directorate aimed to decarbonize and “green” the transportation system, encourage modal shift, decongest transporta- tion corridors, and ensure sustainable urban mobility. Similarly, Japan’s Innovation 25, a long-term strategy guideline adopted at a Cabinet meet- ing on June 1, 2007, established a series of societal goals for the nation. MLIT then identified a role for transportation research in contributing to the achievement of four of these goals. The goal of a safe and secure society, for example, has implications for various aspects of transporta- tion, such as traffic accidents and the risks associated with a rapidly aging infrastructure, and MLIT developed its research priorities accordingly. 14 KICTEP’s budget for transportation and construction R&D increased from $228 million in 2006 to $409 million in 2010. In the transportation area, most of this funding (87 percent) is devoted to product-oriented developmental research; applied research receives about 10 percent of the funding, and the remaining 3 percent goes to fundamental research (Oh 2011).

OCR for page 70
78 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future In South Korea, policy goals and strategies established under the 2008 National Strategy on Green Growth have led KOTI and other research organizations to undertake transportation research activities related to green growth. Research Agenda Setting Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches Most of the organizations the committee considered adopt a combi- nation of top-down and bottom-up processes in setting their research agendas, although the balance between the two approaches differs from one organization to another. KOTI’s annual research action planning, for example, is primarily a top-down activity, as it is closely tied to the South Korean government’s five-year midterm research planning. In contrast, preparation of the EU’s initial FP proposal has an important bottom-up component. Extensive consultations with stakeholder groups, including technical advisory groups from member nations, technology platforms (e.g., the European Road Transport Research Advisory Council and the European Intermodal Research Advisory Council), and the general public, are particularly important in setting research priorities. At the national level, SWOV also emphasizes the importance of giving all stake- holders the opportunity to influence the institute’s agenda-setting pro- cess. In Japan, expert opinion is highly valued in research agenda setting. Although the Japanese government plays a major role in this process, experts are active participants in related discussions; the 14-member Council for Science and Technology Policy, for example, includes tech- nical experts as well as the Prime Minister, the Minister of Science and Technology, and four other ministers. In the above examples, research agenda setting blends top-down and bottom-up processes into one composite procedure; in contrast, France’s ANR clearly distinguishes the two approaches and pursues them simul- taneously. In 2010, half of ANR’s grants went to thematic programs defined by a top-down process in response to economic, environmental, and societal demands, as well as to scientific or technological priorities; the other half went to nonthematic researcher-initiated programs identi- fied through a bottom-up process.

OCR for page 70
Transportation Research Frameworks in Other Countries 79 Administrative Burden Despite the advantages of engaging an inclusive set of stakeholders in research agenda setting, the process can become cumbersome and time consuming, particularly if numerous approvals of the proposed agenda are required. Preparing, negotiating, and adopting a new EU FP, for example, is an iterative process that takes about four years to complete: two years to prepare the initial proposal and another two years for the legislative process leading to legal adoption. As a result, the FP is not sufficiently nimble to respond in a timely manner to new and urgent problems facing individual member nations; it tends instead to focus on precompetitive research. FP administration has generally been perceived by program participants as more burdensome than in national programs, possibly because of the greater scale and complexity of trans-European projects and also because of the greater need for transparency in these highly visible undertakings (Arnold 2005). Thus extensive efforts are underway to reduce the level of bureaucracy associated with the FP and to limit the costs of administering the program (Damiani 2012). Agenda Balance and Scope The EU emphasizes the need for an agenda that balances the many demands on transportation research, such as modal versus system issues, or technical versus policy issues. Hence the agenda-setting process for the FP seeks equilibrium between a holistic approach and modal speci- ficities, between technological and socioeconomic aspects, and between policy goals, industry goals, and user needs. Some organizations aim to balance short- and long-term issues in their research agendas. For example, RSSB’s core program, which sup- ports many aspects of railroad operations, focuses on relatively short-term research, but its Rail Technical Strategy, which includes a vision of the rail- roads in 30 years’ time, aims to help the industry achieve challenging long- term goals associated with the four C’s—customers, carbon, capacity, and cost. Not all organizations take such an approach, however. SWOV focuses on so-called “there-and-then” research that addresses mid and long-term applications. Although the Dutch government understands the benefits of this longer-term research culture, at least in principle, policy makers

OCR for page 70
80 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future are increasingly pressuring the setters of the research agenda to emphasize short-term problems at the expense of long-term research. Both RSSB and IFSTTAR stress the importance of a multidisciplinary research agenda. RSSB’s core program draws on expertise in engineering, operations, risk, workforce development, occupational health, sustain- able development, and social sciences. IFSTTAR promotes a similarly wide range of experts in its research activities, which address a broad set of issues. Strategic Approach RWS takes a highly strategic and structured approach to identifying its research needs and to setting an agenda. The organization makes its four- year plans by using a “knowledge tree” that identifies the fields of knowl- edge needed for performing specific tasks, such as traffic management or facilities maintenance. For each field of knowledge (e.g., asset manage- ment, construction technology, security, environment), a strategy plan identifies the knowledge that will be needed in four years’ time; options for producing, buying, or sharing this knowledge; and the risks associ- ated with not having the knowledge. This strategy plan is used to guide the research tasks that RWS supports at universities and other research organizations. Distribution of Funding for Specific Research Activities Different countries take different approaches to funding the various cat- egories of research, such as basic, advanced, and applied. Basic research in particular is often funded separately. Toward that end, the European Research Council (ERC) was established, as a component of the EU’s FP7, with the specific objective of allowing researchers to identify new directions and opportunities in “frontier” research.15 Hence the ERC complements the EU’s other (nonfrontier) research-funding activities. In France, ANR plays a similar role, funding investigator-initiated fun- damental research while separately funding applied research. 15 The ERC notes that the distinction between basic and applied research is blurred. It uses the term “frontier research” to designate activities directed toward fundamental advances at and beyond the frontiers of knowledge (http://erc.europa.eu/about-erc/mission).

OCR for page 70
84 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future where the cultures see research as a tool for societal good (Elston et al. 2009), and in industry organizations such as the United Kingdom’s RSSB. In the case of the EU’s FP, mandatory assessments are conducted every five years to monitor progress, evaluate results, and create a feedback loop for consequent policy making and planning (Arnold 2005). The latter aspect is particularly important for assimilating and applying les- sons learned from past experience. The duration of programs from FP7 onward has in fact been extended to allow for more meaningful incor- poration of feedback from earlier efforts (Andrée 2009). For the next FP program, called Horizon 2020, the preparatory phase will include ex post evaluations of FP5 and FP6 and an interim evaluation of FP7, as well as an ex ante impact assessment of Horizon 2020.18 Quantitative metrics such as reductions in fatalities and benefit– cost ratios can be particularly valuable in assessing research outcomes. For example, SWOV’s Sustainable Safety strategy is estimated to have reduced fatalities from 1998 to 2007 to less than half the average annual rate of the preceding 10-year period. Benefits to society resulting from investments in infrastructure and enforcement from 1998 to 2007 are estimated to have exceeded the costs by a factor of four. In addition to assessing the practical outcomes of its research, SWOV attempts to assess the quality of its research. Recognizing that quality is far more difficult to measure than quantity, the institute bases its assessment on indirect evidence, such as invitations to participate in regional, national, and international projects, expert groups, congresses, and reviews. These invitations, which come both from the scientific community and orga- nizations interested in the practical implementation of research results,19 provide opportunities for the increased exposure of SWOV’s staff and the dissemination of their knowledge. Dissemination of Results Several organizations highlighted the importance of disseminating the results of their research. SWOV, for example, takes a proactive approach 18 The reader is referred to Arnold (2005) for a more detailed discussion of FP evaluation. 19 See the SWOV 2010 Annual Report (http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Jaarverslag/UK/Annual_ Report_2010.pdf).

OCR for page 70
Transportation Research Frameworks in Other Countries 85 so that new knowledge is quickly available to contribute to increasing road safety. Research results are always published, often in scientific journals, and SWOV staff participates in activities focused on practical implementation of those results. RSSB provides a wide range of infor- mation about its research activities in its publications and on its website. Brief case study reports include descriptions of the problem, the solu- tions resulting from the research, the value of their benefits, reactions from stakeholder groups, and links to related documents and briefings. Implementation of New Knowledge Several organizations conducting applied research highlighted the strat- egies they use to facilitate the practical implementation of new knowl- edge. RSSB’s 10-point plan to enhance innovation in transportation builds on existing best practices and lessons from cross-industry proj- ects. In addition, engagement with the industry both at the inception and completion of such research projects helps ensure that the fruits of the research can be put into practice and add value. A cost–benefit analy- sis is conducted at the research proposal stage, and a postimplementation review focuses on the value of the research outcomes’ benefits (including costs avoided). In Japan, MLIT stresses the importance of giving back to society through discernible research results. Technology road-mapping and the promotion of joint academia–government–industry research partner- ships help establish implementation plans; funding incentives encour- age private-sector research; and the use and dissemination of new technologies are encouraged through the promotion of international standardization and the provision of subsidies for the technologies’ introduction. Research and Human Capital During the committee’s discussions, representatives from several orga- nizations noted the important role of research in attracting and training future transportation professionals. In France, IFSTTAR actively engages in training activities through its research. The institute’s 1,250 employ- ees include 250 PhD students, and 77 doctoral theses were defended in

OCR for page 70
86 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future 2010 by employees of IFSTTAR’s precursor organizations. Similarly, in the Netherlands, SWOV recognizes the importance of investing in human capital. The institute has a PhD program for staff, and researchers at vari- ous universities have the option of conducting their doctoral research within the institute’s research program. In addition, collaborative projects conducted under the auspices of the EU’s FP can bring in new researchers by offering attractive opportunities to work with organizations in other European countries, such as Mercedes-Benz in Germany. LESSONS LEARNED This section analyzes information that the committee gathered on the transportation research frameworks of the EU, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea. These analyses are pre- sented within six categories: • Governance structure, • Cohesive research frameworks, • Links to societal goals, • Importance of basic and advanced research, • Value of research partnerships, and • Research evaluation. To help identify opportunities and challenges for effective U.S. adoption of certain features of the surface transportation research frameworks of the above five countries and one coalition (i.e., the EU, henceforth referred to as a country for simplicity of exposition), important differ- ences and similarities are noted between those frameworks and that of the United States. Governance Structure From an institutional perspective, the countries considered by the com- mittee differ from the United States in important ways. In particular, their surface transportation systems and services are far more central- ized than in the United States, and their corresponding decision-making systems are more unified, being guided in large part by national govern-

OCR for page 70
Transportation Research Frameworks in Other Countries 87 ments. By contrast, surface transportation activities in the United States are highly decentralized, with government responsibilities and decision- making authority distributed among federal, state, and local jurisdic- tions (see Chapter 3). As in the United States, the research frameworks of the European and Asian nations engage academia, government, and industry in the national transportation research endeavor. In all cases, industry plays a key role in linking knowledge creation to knowledge implementation in the form of new or improved products and services. Recent funding ini- tiatives in Europe, such as research PPPs established by the EU and ANR, encourage greater participation by industry in the research process. In Japan and South Korea, the relationship between research outcomes and the creation of economic value is widely assumed (Elston et al. 2009), as is the associated role of industry. The Japanese government takes special measures to engage industry in the research process, providing financial incentives for research by private industry and for the use and dissemi- nation of new technologies. In South Korea, the assessment of research outcomes from projects funded by the Korea Institute of Construction and Transportation Technology Evaluation and Planning emphasizes economic benefits, such as the fees generated from commercialization. As these examples illustrate, the important role of central government in the national transportation research endeavor in European and Asian nations does not preclude strategic, goal-driven, and commercializable research. Unlike the United States, other nations make extensive use of research institutes in establishing partnerships and collaboration. The 2008 scan team observed that all the countries visited, without exception, used some form of research institute “to either fund and financially manage or foster, house, and accomplish collaborative research efforts” (Elston et al. 2009, 3). The structure of these institutes was observed to vary among countries, but in each case the institute brought together gov- ernment, government-funded independent organizations, foundations, academia, and industry in a way that enabled these various partners to respond to the national strategic framework more effectively in collabo- ration than each organization could on its own. The scan team noted that the United States does not have comparable entities to facilitate

OCR for page 70
88 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future collaborative research on the same level, although “some U.S. structures can accomplish portions of the roles of these institutes” (Elston et al. 2009, 5). For example, universities and large consulting organizations often take on a collaborative role, working directly with organizations that implement research results in the form of new products and processes. The U.S. Department of Transportation also undertakes efforts aimed at promoting innovation, such as the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Every Day Counts initiative.20 However, the European and Asian integration of responsibility for bridging the gap between knowledge creation and knowledge application in one institutional structure (a research institute) stands in stark contrast to the U.S. public-sector model (Elston et al. 2009). Cohesive Research Frameworks Because the surface transportation networks and systems in many Euro- pean and Asian countries are centralized, their transportation research frameworks are correspondingly cohesive. Thus both Japan and South Korea have structured transportation research frameworks linked to national goals for economic growth and quality of life. Government ministries play a major role in developing strategic research plans and research agendas and in implementing these agendas in a coordinated fashion across the research enterprise. For example, the strategies and policy goals established under South Korea’s 2008 National Strategy on Green Growth have led to a series of green growth–related transporta- tion research activities by KOTI and other organizations. In contrast, because the surface transportation enterprise in the United States is highly decentralized, the nation’s transportation research framework is fragmented and ad hoc (see Chapter 3). An important objective of the EU’s FP is to overcome the fragmen- tation of Europe’s research activities and resources. Initial attempts to achieve greater integration of the various countries’ programs focused on establishing collaborative projects. In FP6 and FP7, for example, 20 www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/.

OCR for page 70
Transportation Research Frameworks in Other Countries 89 additional “integrating instruments,” such as Joint Technology Initia- tives (i.e., PPPs) and the ERC, were introduced (Andrée 2009). These Europe-wide community-building efforts have established linkages between national surface transportation research activities and broader pan-European programs; representatives of several European trans- portation research organizations commented to the committee on their involvement in such efforts. The opportunity to benefit from intangible assets (e.g., improved capabilities, tools, and techniques gleaned through interactions with other researchers) was shown to be a strong motive for participation in FP6 networks within the information technologies area (Wagner et al. 2005; Ruegg and Jordan 2007). Links to Societal Goals The 2008 international scan team observed a perspective on transporta- tion research that “differed greatly from the U.S. public sector model”; in all the countries visited, transportation research was seen as “an inte- gral piece of . . . efforts to maintain or create a more robust national economy” (Elston et al. 2009, 2). This observation was confirmed by the committee’s examination of the national research organizations listed in Table 4-1. Each organization establishes clear linkages between its transportation research and national (or supranational) goals in areas such as economic development, quality of life, and protection of the environment. These linkages are largely the result of the countries’ use of top-down processes to develop research agendas. Most of these top-down processes, however, have an important bottom-up compo- nent in that they seek input from a variety of stakeholders, including technical experts and organizations potentially interested in implement- ing research results. Hence a judicious combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches is used to develop robust research agendas with a high-level strategic focus. In the United States, by contrast, many initiatives for transporta- tion research programming and funding are organized according to a bottom-up approach that focuses on solving problems identified by par- ticular sponsors, such as state departments of transportation or transit

OCR for page 70
90 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future agencies. As a result, U.S. surface transportation research often, though not always, lacks the clear linkages to national goals that characterize research frameworks in other nations. American exceptions include research partnerships between the federal government and industry that target technologies for more fuel-efficient vehicles; for example, the 21st Century Truck Partnership addresses national goals for reduc- ing the nation’s dependence on imported oil and cutting greenhouse gas emissions (see Chapter 3). Importance of Basic and Advanced Research In Europe, as in the United States, budgetary constraints tend to favor applied research with a relatively short-term payoff over basic and advanced research offering potential benefits in the future. Nonetheless, European nations continue to value and fund basic research. In par- ticular, both France and the EU have established organizations (ANR and ERC, respectively) for the specific purpose of supporting basic and advanced research. In Japan, basic research is regarded as an integral part of the overall innovation process and is not artificially separated from other research activities in the funding process. However, basic research needed to achieve specific technological targets is funded as part of a project-oriented research initiative, such as for development of intelligent transportation or Maglev rail systems. The United States adopts both of the above strategies for fund- ing basic and advanced research, although the nation’s overall basic and advanced research effort targeting surface transportation is rela- tively modest, as noted in Chapter 3. Funding for FHWA’s Explor- atory Advanced Research Program specifically aims at longer-term, higher-risk breakthrough research. The Asphalt Research Program (Superpave®), which originated in the Strategic Highway Research Program (see Chapter 3), was essentially an applied research program; however, early work included considerable amounts of basic research, such as studies of the influence of asphalt chemistry, that were needed to achieve the desired pavement performance (McDaniel et al. 2011).

OCR for page 70
Transportation Research Frameworks in Other Countries 91 Value of Research Partnerships Domestic and international research partnerships provide several major benefits. Access to the complementary skills and experience of partners from the public, private, and academic sectors strengthens the entire research and innovation process. For example, MLIT’s research programs engage academia, government, and industry; and ANR’s PPPs involve public research organizations and private industry. Research partner- ships allow institutions to pool resources, thus enabling the pursuit of research that is too broad in scope or too costly to be undertaken by a single organization (or country). EU research under FP7, for example, addresses common European issues. Research partnerships also provide opportunities to improve research quality, increase the likelihood of suc- cessful outcomes, enhance the status of the research organization, and develop human capital through engagement in the wider, particularly international, research community. Examples include RSSB’s formal and informal research collaborations with organizations in Japan, Australia, and the United States, and KOTI’s researcher-exchange programs with the World Bank and OECD. Research Evaluation The European and Asian transportation research organizations con- sidered by the committee, in common with their U.S. counterparts, emphasize the value of knowledge-based decision making in helping them make the best use of available resources. In that spirit, research evaluation provides important information for those who fund or con- duct research. These organizations use a variety of research-evaluation methods to monitor ongoing research and assess research outcomes in various forms, such as new understanding of basic phenomena, new transportation policies, and new or improved commercial technologies. Research evaluation also uses lessons learned from past experience to inform future research planning. HIGHLIGHTS Highlights of the committee’s analysis of information on transportation research frameworks in other countries are listed in Box 4-1.

OCR for page 70
92 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future BOX 4-1 Highlights: Transportation Research Frameworks in Other Countries • Through community-building efforts that leverage national research activities in support of broad pan-European goals, the EU’s Framework Program has added value to member nations’ surface transportation research. • Central governance in a national research endeavor can lead to strategic, goal-driven, and commercializable transporta- tion research. • Research partnerships, whether domestic or international, strengthen the research process by drawing on the comple- mentary skills and experience of the partners. Such partner- ships may also facilitate the pooling of resources in support of research that is too broad in scope or too costly to be undertaken by a single organization or country. • Research partnerships, both formal and informal, can be established through a variety of mechanisms, including research institutes, transnational cooperative initiatives, research public–private partnerships, research networks, and technology platforms. • Balancing top-down and bottom-up approaches to setting a country’s research agenda makes it more likely to be techni- cally robust and reflective of national and societal goals. • Basic research and advanced research, though less obviously linked to new or improved transportation systems than applied research and technology transfer, are recognized as a valuable component of a national or supranational trans- portation research portfolio. • Information gained from a variety of research evaluation meth- ods helps transportation research organizations, including those that provide funding, to develop research plans and make informed decisions about resource allocations for the future.

OCR for page 70
Transportation Research Frameworks in Other Countries 93 REFERENCES Abbreviation RWS Rijkswaterstaat Center for Transport and Navigation Andrée, D. 2009. Priority-Setting in the European Research Framework Programmes. VA 2009:17. VINNOVA Analysis, Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, Stockholm, Sweden. www.vinnova.se/upload/EPiStorePDF/va-09-17.pdf. Arnold, E. 2005. What the Evaluation Record Tells Us About Framework Programme Per- formance. Technopolis Group, Brighton, United Kingdom. www.technopolis-group. com/resources/downloads/reports/506_Final_050718.pdf. Damiani, A. 2012. EU Transport Research: Priority Setting and Funding Schemes. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 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. Harder, B. T. 2007. Transportation Research Program Administration: The International Technology Scanning Program Desk Scan. Federal Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C. Jack, A. 2011. Workshop on Research Frameworks: A Perspective from the United King- dom. Presented to Committee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Wash- ington, D.C., July 19. Jacob, B. 2011. R&D and Innovation Processes in France and at IFSTTAR. Presented to Committee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transportation, Trans- portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., July 19. McDaniel, R. S., R. B. Leahy, G. A. Huber, J. S. Moulthrop, and T. Ferragut. 2011. The Superpave Mix Design System: Anatomy of a Research Program. Final report, NCHRP Project 9-42. NCHRP Web-Only Document 186. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/online pubs/nchrp/nchrp_W186.pdf. Morichi, S. 2011. A Japanese Perspective: System for Transportation-Related R&D in Japan. Presented to Committee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Wash- ington, D.C., Oct. 24. Oh, J. 2011. National Transportation Research Frameworks: A Korean Perspective. Presented to Committee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transportation, Trans- portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Oct. 24.

OCR for page 70
94 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future Rogge, L. 2011. EU-Funded Transport Research. Presented to Committee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., July 19. Ruegg, R., and G. Jordan. 2007. Overview of Evaluation Methods for R&D Programs: A Directory of Evaluation Methods Relevant to Technology Development Programs. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. http://www1. eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/evaluation_methods_r_and_d.pdf. RWS. 2010. Annual Report Rijkswaterstaat 2010. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Envi- ronment, The Hague, Netherlands. http://rijkswaterstaat.nl/en/images/Annual%20 Report%20Rijkswaterstaat%202010_tcm224-308315.pdf. Wagner, C. S., J. Cave, T. Tesch, V. Allee, R. Thomson, G. Leydesdorff, and M. Botterman. 2005. ERAnets Evaluation of Collaboration Among Participants in IST Research and Their Evolution to Collaborations in the European Research Area (ERA). Monograph 254-EC. RAND Europe, Leiden, Netherlands. Wegman, F. 2011. Road Safety Research in the Netherlands by SWOV. Presented to Com- mittee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transportation, Transpor- tation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., July 19.