The Federal Investment in Highway Research, 2006-2009 Strengths and Weaknesses - Special Report 295 (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Assessment of Authorized Programs
5 Assessment of Authorized Programs
Pages 89-130
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 89... ...
and the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) 2 are discussed under the appropriate topic areas (operations and safety for the former, and infrastructure, operations, safety, and planning and environment for the latter)
|
From page 90... ...
3. Content The Exploratory Advanced Research Program is the only FHWA program dedicated to fundamental, long-term highway research.
|
From page 91... ...
Lead staff for each project are responsible for engaging outside experts with appropriate technical expertise to help in reviewing results once initial projects selected for the program have been completed. Assessment Based on Additional Criteria The Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC)
|
From page 92... ...
Thus, the committee would prefer to see most of the advanced research funding allocated for extramural research. INFRASTRUCTURE RD&T Assessment Based on SAFETEA-LU Principles Brief assessments of each infrastructure program described above in terms of the SAFETEA-LU principles are contained in Appendix C and are summarized in Table 5-1.
|
From page 93... ...
Asphalts and limited discre Modified tionary funds Asphalts Asphalt Research 6.2 Advanced/ Suboptimal private Gap filling FHWA funding None (earmark) None required Consortium applied investment through its (earmark)
|
From page 94... ...
Content Input Reviewa Evaluationb Long-Term Bridge 6.4 Data collection/ Suboptimal private Gap filling AASHTO support Competitive AASHTO bridge Performance applied investment/ along with local contractor subcommittee efficient use of governments selection review federal dollars Innovative Bridge 14.6 in FY Full cycle Efficient use of Mainly gap Road maps Grant program Usually Research and 2006 federal dollars filling developed with competed; reviewed by Deployment and stakeholders RD&T end-user 2007 conducted groups at FHWA High-Performance 4.0 in FY Full cycle National priorities Mainly gap Guided by working About 35 Usually Concrete 2006 filling group of percent reviewed by Bridge and stakeholders competed, end-user Research and 2007 remainder groups Development intramural Ultra-High- 0.5 Full cycle Suboptimal private Mainly gap Stakeholders None -- all Usually Performance investment/ filling/ guide work to internal reviewed by Concrete efficient use of deployment be done end-user Research federal dollars groups
|
From page 95... ...
None required Composite 2006 (earmark) Materials and and Structures 2007 SHRP 2: Renewal 7.9 Applied/ Suboptimal private Gap filling/ Stakeholder Full and open Peer review deployment investment/ deployment governance, with merit by expert efficient use of merit review, review by stakeholders federal dollars peer review expert stakeholders NOTE: AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; ETG = Expert Task Group; RFP = request for proposals; TWG = Technical Working Group.
|
From page 96... ...
SAFETEA-LU authorized $75 million in funding for Highways for LIFE -- $15 million for FY 2006 and $20 million annually for FY 2007–2009 for activities including demonstration construction projects, stakeholder input and involvement, technology transfer, technology partnerships, information dissemination, and monitoring and evaluation. The missing element among all of FHWA's deployment activities appears to be a resource within the agency with explicit expertise in technology transfer and deployment that could provide guidance to the various efforts agencywide.
|
From page 97... ...
FHWA would not have proposed the Steel Bridge Testing Program, given that it considers existing nondestructive evaluation techniques for detecting flaws and cracks to be adequate. Nor is the earmark for research on polymer–wood composites, for which there is little public-sector demand, of national significance.
|
From page 98... ...
4. Stakeholder Input A number of mechanisms exist across infrastructure RD&T programs for engaging a variety of stakeholders.
|
From page 99... ...
5. Awards Based on Competition and Merit Review Of the designated programs that FHWA administers, some [LTPP, Long-Term Bridge Performance (LTBP)
|
From page 100... ...
External experts are not regularly involved in merit review for contractor selection. FHWA has no funds to support this activity; this is one of many consequences of having no budget flexibility because of budgetary constraints.
|
From page 101... ...
At the program level, FHWA involves peer committees, such as RTCC, the TRB committee for the LTPP Program, and the TRB committee for FHWA's pavement research and deployment activities, in ongoing assessments. The laboratories at the Turner–Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC)
|
From page 102... ...
Many state DOTs also contributed funds, efforts, and mate rials, but the total level of state expenditures is not known.
|
From page 103... ...
The 2008 Technical Corrections legislation restored funding for part of FY 2008 and 2009 for the operation of TFHRC and gave FHWA some flexibility in the allocation of Title V funds -- about $14 million after full funding of all other designations and earmarks, which is still below authorized levels. OPERATIONS RD&T Assessment Based on SAFETEA-LU Principles The operations RD&T activities of FHWA and SHRP 2 are assessed collectively below.
|
From page 104... ...
The agenda-setting phase of the program, which involved stakeholders, occurred before SAFETEA-LU funding became available. Planned deployment activities for SHRP 2 have had to be substantially curtailed because of a lack of funding and the shorter-than-expected funding cycle for the program.
|
From page 105... ...
4. Stakeholder Input All four FHWA RD&T efforts described in Chapter 3 illustrate the agency's engagement with stakeholders, but at different points in the cycle and with differing degrees of involvement.
|
From page 106... ...
As described above, SHRP 2 is guided by committees comprising stakeholders who set priorities, choose among bidders, evaluate proposals, provide merit review, and perform peer review of results. The TCC for the travel time reliability program includes representatives from state DOTs, FHWA, AASHTO, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)
|
From page 107... ...
Performance review and evaluation for SHRP 2 was discussed above in the section on infrastructure RD&T. Assessment Based on Additional Criteria Because of funding constraints, important activities of the Office of Operations are unfunded, including updating of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and work on truck size and weight issues and emergency traffic operations.
|
From page 108... ...
Best 30,000 Task order State DOTs Practices for Planning and Environmental Linkages Ecological Grants Integrating Transportation 1,000,000 TBD Federal agencies, and Resource Planning to Develop State DOTs Ecosystem-Based Infrastructure Projects NOTE: EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; NGO = nongovernmental organization; TBD = to be determined.
|
From page 109... ...
5. Awards Based on Competition and Merit Review FHWA's Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty awards funding through various competitive means, including contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements.
|
From page 110... ...
Performance review and evaluation for SHRP 2 was discussed above in the section on infrastructure RD&T. Assessment Based on Additional Criteria Funding Levels Undoubtedly the most significant issue facing RD&T in the planning and environmental area is funding.
|
From page 111... ...
Even so, the committee that recommended the research agenda for a surface transportation environment and planning cooperative research program wanted the program's governance to be modeled on that of other cooperative research programs, wherein stakeholders determine priorities and allocate funding (TRB 2002)
|
From page 112... ...
. This national survey, conducted every few years, provides basic information about individual and household travel behavior.
|
From page 113... ...
In Special Report 288: Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future Direction (TRB 2007) , a program of research to advance both models and practice is recommended.
|
From page 114... ...
1. Full Innovation Cycle The majority of FHWA's safety programs provide software tools, manuals, technical briefs, and other guidance for practitioners.
|
From page 115... ...
4. Stakeholder Input FHWA's safety research is closely coordinated with other major stakeholders in highway safety, including other federal agencies with a safety mission, such as NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; associations representing the states, counties, police chiefs, and motor vehicle administrators; companies providing signs and markings; 6 This research is funded through the ITS Program, housed in RITA since 2007, but portions of the work are conducted at TFHRC, and development and deployment of such technologies is an element of FHWA's safety program.
|
From page 116... ...
FHWA is also managing and helping to fund research initiatives funded in part by state DOTs and is involved with AASHTO in the development and implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. As a further example of responsiveness to stakeholder input, research and the development of design guidance on nontraditional intersections resulted from strong state and local interest in these alternative designs.
|
From page 117... ...
As discussed earlier, all of the SHRP 2 research funds are awarded in full and open competition. Both FHWA and SHRP 2 safety programs engage stakeholders in merit review of proposals.
|
From page 118... ...
. POLICY RESEARCH Assessment Based on SAFETEA-LU Principles 1.
|
From page 119... ...
Would they, for example, divert to roads that are less safe, thereby increasing crash rates? The work of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission was hampered by a lack of understanding of these
|
From page 120... ...
5. Awards Based on Competition and Merit Review Without funding during this authorization cycle, there has been little contract activity on which to comment.
|
From page 121... ...
As noted earlier, when state DOTs provide the match, as is often the case, they typically are most interested in highly applied, problem-solving research.
|
From page 122... ...
RITA also requires UTCs to engage stakeholders and peers through merit review of their proposed research and through advisory boards for the centers. Centers have a variety of processes for engaging stakeholders, but those processes must be approved by RITA as part of program plans.
|
From page 123... ...
One measure that would help in this regard would be publication in peer-reviewed journals, but this is not a metric the UTCs are required to collect. Assessment Based on Additional Criteria One of the structural weaknesses of the UTC Program is the lack of opportunity USDOT's mission agencies have to influence the centers' 9 There are several universities and research institutes earmarked in sections of SAFETEA-LU in addition to those earmarked in the UTC Program.
|
From page 124... ...
AAAS has long supported the awarding of research funds on the basis of merit review by peers. AAAS Resolution: Reaffirmation of Commitment to Scientific Peer Review "Whereas the partnership between the government and the com munity of scientists is essential to the advancement of science, and "Whereas without broadly based, consistent, critical, and profes sional evaluation of proposed expenditures for scientific work, there is a growing danger that the quality of research and educa tion in science will be jeopardized, "Be it resolved that the Council of the AAAS reaffirm its com mitment to the principle and practice of scientific peer review as indispensable to the allocation of public funds for the scientific enterprise." [Adopted by the AAAS Council, May 30, 1985.]
|
From page 125... ...
But there is no apparent research or educational justification for providing the national centers $3.5 million annually or the Tier II centers $500,000. As discussed above, the state DOTs are a primary source of matching funds for UTC research.
|
From page 126... ...
There are also significant data gaps involving passenger travel behavior, freight demand, and other important issues. Stakeholder Involvement In recent years, FHWA has adjusted its R&T programs to involve stakeholders increasingly in agenda setting, merit review, and product evaluation.
|
From page 127... ...
and RITA's Title V UTC Program (62 percent) are earmarked, thus failing the test for competition and merit review.
|
From page 128... ...
In principle, the universities funded through the UTC Program should be conducting much more advanced research; however, the dollar-for-dollar match diverts UTC research from its originally intended purpose. As noted, most matching funds are provided by state DOTs, which are interested in highly applied and developmental research.
|
From page 129... ...
Universities are a key resource for highway research and education, but the 50-50 matching requirement hinders them from conducting the advanced research that is the strength of universities and is needed by the highway sector. The diffuse and uncoordinated research conducted through the UTC Program highlights the need for a communitywide consensus on research priorities at a level of specificity that could guide research.
|
From page 130... ...
2001. Special Report 261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology.
|
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.