The Federal Investment in Highway Research, 2006-2009 Strengths and Weaknesses - Special Report 295 (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Principles for Highway Researchand Technology Investments
4 Principles for Highway Researchand Technology Investments
Pages 80-88
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 80... ...
6. Competition and peer review, which requires open competition and merit review by peers of almost all proposals for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements.1 1 The committee interprets the congressional intent to be that competitively solicited proposals should be selected for award on the basis of a merit review by peers.
|
From page 81... ...
in Chapter 3, some of the programs are devoted to particular elements of the innovation cycle; for example, the advanced research program is devoted exclusively to the conduct of fundamental research. However, it is not necessary that each program encompass the full innovation cycle, but that the entire portfolio of federal programs do so.
|
From page 82... ...
Examples are new construction techniques, because competitors could easily copy them, and paving or bridge materials or mix designs, because these are typically specified in bid documents. Private R&D is less challenged by procurement practices in some other areas, such as sign materials, traffic signals and controllers, asphalt mixing plant efficiency, and highway construction equipment, and in these areas there is an innovative and competitive private sector.
|
From page 83... ...
Along with federal-aid highway funds, FHWA research programs reflect this criterion by providing policy guidance, technical assistance, and technology transfer to states and local governments. With regard to the criterion of "the best means to support federal policy goals," research may be the best approach to program efficiency when the means to this end are too difficult to specify or regulate.
|
From page 84... ...
Thus the gaps that should be filled by FHWA are topics of national significance, including emerging issues such as strategies for reducing energy consumption and making reasonable adaptations to climate change, and alternative sources of user fees for funding highway programs. These gaps might also include large-scale applied projects that are simply too big for individual states to undertake.
|
From page 85... ...
SAFETEA-LU states that "federal surface transportation research and development activities shall address the needs of stakeholders. Stakeholders include States, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, the private sector, researchers, research sponsors, and other affected groups, including public interest groups." Different stakeholders have different roles at various stages of the RD&T process (Brach 2005)
|
From page 86... ...
8. Technological Innovation The text for this principle states simply that "the programs and activities carried out under this section shall be consistent with the surface transportation strategic plan developed under section 508." The RD&T strategic plan was subsequently prepared under the leadership of RITA and was itself reviewed in draft form by a committee of the Transportation Research Board (TRB)
|
From page 87... ...
2. Justification for federal investment requires that either – Activities be of national significance, – There be public benefit and suboptimal private investment, – Efficient use of federal funds by states and local governments be encouraged, or – The activity be the best means to support federal objectives.
|
From page 88... ...
2005. A Taxonomy for Stakeholder Involvement in Public Sector Transportation Research and Technology Programs.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.