Transportation Research Implementation: Application of Research Outcomes (2015)

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.

67 APPENDIX A: COMMISSIONED WHITE PAPER 1 Transportation Research Implementation in the European Union and the United States Observations and Working Hypotheses This white paper provides a foundation for the Second EU-U.S. Transportation Research Symposium held April 10–11, 2014, in Paris, France. The paper takes its theme from one simple and inspiring statement found by the authors in one of the preparatory notes for the Sympo- sium: “research has little value if its outcomes are not applied.” Although this paper includes multiple exam- ples of successful transportation research implementa- tion activities, programs, and strategies on both sides of the Atlantic, its overarching thesis is that there are necessary core conditions for enhancing the implementa- tion of transportation research in Europe and the United States that remain largely unrealized: Condition 1. A process that provides sufficient fund- ing for research implementation, Condition 2. Centralized planning and coordination, Condition 3. Effective data collection and analysis, and Condition 4. Effective use of intellectual property tools. Although there are a myriad of differences between Europe and the United States in planning activities, orga- nizational features, policy frameworks, and on-the-ground facts, there is also significant evidence that unrealized con- ditions for effective transportation implementation are shared by these advanced political–economic structures. It is notable, however, that the European Union has made extensive progress in centralizing and coordinating its transportation research implementation activities through the mechanism of EU-wide framework research programs. Additionally, it would be a mistake to ignore U.S. progress toward an integrated transportation planning Ángel Aparicio, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain John Munro, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA Technology transfer (or research implementation) is the process by which existing knowledge, facilities, or capabilities developed under [U.S.] federal research and development (R&D) funding are utilized to fulfill public and private needs. U.S. Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, 2014 Fostering a culture of innovation, where the results of research are exploited for the benefit of EU citizens, is a tenet of the European Research Area. Joint Research Centre, European Commission, 2012 It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity. Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

68 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n and innovation management system through initiatives exemplified by the Every Day Counts program, which is breaking down historical barriers to the implementation of highway innovations. U.S. Secretary of Transporta- tion Anthony Foxx’s commitment to developing an inte- grated national plan for transportation will also help to promote integration and greater efficiencies throughout the U.S. transportation ecosystem as well as move the United States into closer alignment with the European framework research model. This paper reviews specific myths about transporta- tion research implementation that arguably work against constructive change, for example, “Government funding and involvement should decrease as research approaches commercialization.” Unfortunately, this myth and oth- ers have constrained the implementation of innovation, particularly for small firms and other entities that lack the resources to successfully move through what technol- ogy transfer specialists call the valley of death. Notably, there is evidence that administrations on both sides of the Atlantic are introducing policies and programs that will provide new funding for research implementation. The paper ends with a set of 12 hypotheses designed to promote discussion regarding possible steps for pro- moting enhanced research implementation. 1 Background and Scope This paper provides a comparative assessment of how transportation research moves to implementation and commercialization, both in the United States and within the European Union. Underlying this paper is observation that research implementation–commercialization is less than optimal in the European Union and the United States and that there are unmet “necessary” conditions that are responsible for this situation. Equally true, there are sig- nificant opportunities to enhance research implementation on both sides of the Atlantic. By research implementa- tion, the authors mean transportation research that has reached the end point of technology deployment, either through adoption of the innovation as broadly accepted practice by public funding agencies or through commer- cialization via customers, whether companies, public enti- ties, or individual entrepreneurs. Notably, while the facts are different, the necessary conditions and opportunities for optimized implementation of transportation research in Europe and the United States are strikingly similar in terms of both causes and resultant effects. Figure 1 illus- trates the research development and deployment cycle. Indeed, the importance of government in research implementation has often been the missing step on both sides of the Atlantic. Many public officials may view their role (and funding) as appropriately receding the closer research findings get to commercialization, Research Implementation “Research implementation” is a vague term, and definitions and interpretations abound. Implementation can apply to any transition from one research phase to another phase, such as incor- porating research in a publication or securing a patent. It can also pertain to technology transfer from one organization to another without actual use. This paper defines research implementation as moving research fully from a test bed, shelf, patent, or a research paper into broad commercialization in which multiple units are used in activities such as infrastructure, railroads, software, sensors, and so forth. One-time deployment or limited experimen- tal use is not considered research implementation. FIGURE 1 Research development and deployment cycle. Marketing Licensing Product Development Public Use and Financial Returns Discovery Disclosure Evaluation Intellectual Property Protection T E C H N O L O G Y T R A N S F E R P R O C E S S because they want to avoid potential conflicts of interest and distortions in market competition. The metaphor of the valley of death is applied to signify the critical point when government funds vanish and the private entity faces the lonely prospect of moving research into the marketplace without adequate supporting funds (Figures 2 and 3). The U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program [sponsored by several modes within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)] is a good example of a U.S. pro- gram created to actively help small businesses develop innovative technologies.1 Unfortunately, when compa- 1 For information on the SBIR program, visit http://www.volpe.dot .gov/work-with-us/small-business-innovation-research.

69A p p e n d i x A : C o m m i s s i o n e d w h i t e p A p e r 1 FIGURE 2 The valley of death. Venture Capital Public Financing Private Equity Debt Financing Potential Contracts with Agencies Little or no direct public financing Technological Valley of Death Commercialization Valley of Death Stage 1: R&D Stage 2: Prototype/Proof of Concept Stage 4: Demonstration Pilot Stage 6: Commercialization FIGURE 3 The U.S. Transportation innovation process and valleys of death. (Source: Adapted from Jenkins and Mansur 2011, Figure 1, p. 5.) nies enter the third and final phase of the program, they may discover that there are no provisions for funding the commercialization process. Moreover, private capital is not always available to provide a bridge loan over the metaphorical valley of death. A similar situation can be found in the EU Competi- tiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), which has a budget of €3.6 billion. CIP aimed at encour- aging the competitiveness of European industry in the 2007–2013 budget period, with small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) as its main target. CIP has now been merged with the Framework Programme on Research and Development within the new Horizon 2020 concept for the current budget period (2014–2020); unfortu- nately, the limitations in supporting commercialization remain in place. Innovators in Europe and the United States face this chasm equally. Despite the pervasive belief that the suc- cess rate for the implementation of new technologies in Europe is significantly greater than that in the United States because Europe trends toward the socialistic end of the political spectrum and the United States is more closely tied to laissez-faire capitalism (in which failures are an expected part of market processes), there are few hard data to support this conclusion. The effects of economic globalism may be operating to smooth both implementation success and failure rates in both jurisdictions.

70 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n This paper highlights the role of the private sec- tor in transportation research implementation and commercialization; however, the central focus is on the role (and relative success) of the public sectors in Europe and the United States in supporting the imple- mentation of transportation research. Section 2 of the paper describes current trends in publicly sponsored research implementation while discussing contrasts with certain elements of the private sector. Section 3 reviews the main elements of the transportation research ecosystem in the European Union and the United States and posits necessary conditions for opti- mizing research implementation: sufficient funding, organizational coordination, effective process analy- sis based on sound data collection, and the effective use of intellectual property tools. Section 4 gathers together some pervasive myths pertaining to transpor- tation research implementation. Finally, to stimulate the discussions at the symposium, Section 5 proposes 12 working hypotheses on why the implementation of research results remains challenging. Although the transportation sector will be considered in whole throughout the paper, significant differences in innovation paths and methods, research budgets, and stakeholder involvement are found while moving across transportation modes. Furthermore, the innova- tion cycle and the involvement of the private and public sectors are quite different with regard to vehicles and equipment, infrastructure, and transport service provi- sion. Generally speaking, vehicles and related equip- ment constitute the area in which more investment is made and in which the involvement of the industry is particularly relevant (Wiesenthal et al. 2011). The financial support of the public sector is traditionally higher in the area of infrastructure and networks, and this is the area in which the industry seems to dedicate fewer resources to innovation. Socioeconomic research, frequently linked to regulations and policy choices, is another research area that has often been traditionally dependent on public funding. 2 State of tranSportation reSearch implementation in the united StateS and europe 2.1 Current Trends in Transportation Research Implementation and Commercialization 2.1.1 United States The Executive Committee of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) completed a list of critical issues in U.S. transportation for 2013 to stimulate awareness and debate and to focus research on the most pressing transportation issues facing the nation (TRB 2013). The Executive Committee observed that • Performance of the U.S. transportation system is neither reliable nor resilient; • Despite safety improvements, the United States suf- fers significant, avoidable deaths and injuries every year; • Transportation exerts large-scale, unsustainable impacts on energy, the environment, and climate; • Inadequate sources for infrastructure impede the performance and safety of the transportation system; • Innovation in passenger mobility services and public-system infrastructure lags far behind that in the private sector (and Europe); and • The R&D investment necessary for finding and adopting new solutions is declining. The Executive Committee also observed that “uncertainty about the direction of federal policy and about funding shortfalls underscores the importance of research” (TRB 2013). Undeniably, research has played a critical role in sustaining U.S. leadership in transportation in both the 20th and 21st centuries. Most notable for highways are the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), which originated in the 1990s, and its successor, SHRP 2. One of the major outcomes of SHRP was the Superpave® program, which has been implemented with great success across the United States. While the research results from SHRP 2 are just being completed in the areas of safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity, detailed plans are now being developed to ensure the rapid implementation of innovative practices and products. The SHRP 2 program provides multiple opportunities for rapid and effective implementation of transportation research in the United States. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx has adeptly identified opportunities for accelerating the implementation of research results. For example, at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, the secretary announced his commitment to accelerating the deployment of best practices culled from recent studies that demonstrate that the costs of infrastructure improvements can be reduced by as much as 40%.2 Paradoxically, while reduced funding is often a serious impediment to implementing transportation research, the effective implementation of research can enable public agencies to do more with less. In the United States, institutions, programs, and policies continue to change and adapt to the evolv- ing requirements of transportation research imple- mentation, as exemplified by the establishment of the 2 Remarks made at the Chairman’s Luncheon, Washington, D.C., January 15, 2014.

71A p p e n d i x A : C o m m i s s i o n e d w h i t e p A p e r 1 injector Westport and Delphi will develop together will be used in Westport’s high-pressure direct-injection 2.0 technology. Combining technologies and facilities from the two companies will allow them to develop injectors that are simplified, have improved performance and reliability, and have lower costs compared with current injector technology, they said. Moreover, sharing of intellectual property is a key aspect of implementing private research. David Demers, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Westport, said in a press statement that our agreement and investment with Delphi com- bines intellectual property with global production capacity at one of the world’s most sophisticated injector facilities. . . . Delphi’s support for natu- ral gas fuel systems and Westport HPDI [high- pressure direct injection] components . . . will help create a landmark product with industry defining pricing, quality and performance characteristics for global engine OEMs [original equipment man- ufacturers]” (Alliance of Automobile Manufactur- ers 2014). Nevertheless, the question remains whether public and private components of the transportation sector can provide the smart infrastructure necessary to support the timely optimization of the in-vehicle innovations provided by the automobile industry (Alliance of Auto- mobile Manufacturers 2014). Part of the issue revolves around the enactment of regulatory frameworks that are accepted by both the European Union and the United States—owing to the international nature of the auto- mobile industry—while enabling accelerated research implementation–commercialization on both sides of the Atlantic. 2.1.2 Europe Lack of implementation of research results was iden- tified as a significant barrier to achieving the Lisbon Strategy’s (failed) vision of transforming Europe into “the world’s largest knowledge-based economy” by 2010. The new strategy, Europe 2020, made a simi- lar assessment and developed a flagship initiative, Innovation Union, to address this barrier. With this background, it is not surprising that the preparation of Horizon 2020, the new EU research Framework Programme for 2014–2020, included wide debates on how to better integrate European industry in European research programs and how to move research results forward toward implementation. One of the key changes in the European research framework is that Horizon 2020 brings together all exist- Research and Innovative Technology Administration,3 which is working successfully to coordinate research programs throughout the U.S. DOT, spur the imple- mentation of intelligent transportation system tech- nologies, and develop intellectual property for commercialization. One past barrier to effective research implementation and commercialization was ambiguity in the guidance issued regarding the use of federal highway funds for projects using proprietary technologies. Recognizing the opportunities associated with the use of proprietary technologies, FHWA issued new guidance in 2011 that clarified existing regulations on the use of patented and proprietary products for federal aid highway projects. The guidance emphasizes that a state transportation agency may specify the use of proprietary products when the agency certifies that no suitable alternative product exists, as in the case of innovative products offering better performance, or that the product is needed for synchronization with existing highway facilities. These changes should accelerate the movement of innovations into the construction of highway infrastructure. Clarifying this guidance underscores FHWA’s commitment to policy and programmatic changes that further the implementation of highway research (FHWA 2011). Nevertheless, simply clarifying existing guidance will not substitute for policies that incentivize the implementation of transportation research and technology transfer. In addition, as discussed further below, public policies and programs that build on past progress will go a long way toward ensuring that the U.S. transportation system remains robust and innovation based. Within the private sector, it is evident that privately financed R&D and implementation–commercialization within the U.S. automobile industry are moving forward. Part of industry’s commitment to innovation is of course the result of stiff competition, abundant intellectual property, government regulation, and profits. To keep pace with ever-growing consumer demands for sophisticated new automobile technologies, auto- makers spend more than $100 billion annually on R&D, including $18 billion in the United States alone. Booz Allen found that auto industry spending on R&D climbed $7.4 billion to $102 billion in 2013. In comparison, the entire global aerospace and defense industry spent about $25.5 billion on R&D in 2013—one-quarter of what the auto industry spent. Another robust area of research is the conversion of vehicles to new, cleaner fuels such as abundant natural gas. Westport Innovations Inc. and Delphi Automotive reported on March 3, 2014, that they have signed an agreement to develop high-pressure fuel injectors for heavy-duty truck engines that use natural gas. The first 3 Now the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology.

72 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ing Union research and innovation funding, with some new features, including “the integration of research and innovation by providing seamless and coherent funding from idea to market” and “more support for innovation and activities close to the market, leading to a direct eco- nomic stimulus”; one of the priorities where resources are focused is “smart, green and integrated transport” (European Commission 2011). The new approach of Horizon 2020 can be seen as a confirmation of the growing concerns about the lack of delivery of research products in terms of enhanced economic performance and competitiveness. These con- cerns are shared across economic sectors and are cer- tainly not an exclusive feature of the transportation community. Horizon 2020 includes new instruments to support implementation (mainly the new call, Small Business and Fast Track Innovation for Transport) and provides expanded resources for the involvement of the industry in research activities aiming at implementation of a public–private partnership (PPP) platform (such as the Joint Research Initiatives). Last but not least, interac- tion with the research services of the European Commis- sion and industry for setting up the research agenda has been steadily increasing since the mid-2000s through the European Technology Platforms (ETPs). In spite of these efforts, implementation of transport research results remains a significant challenge in Europe. It is worth noting that there are enormous differences within the transport sector in terms of the size of the research effort made by industry and the paths toward implementation. As in the United States, the context and the research cultures and practices are completely differ- ent in the areas of vehicle and equipment manufactur- ing, infrastructure construction and maintenance, and transport service provision. The European automotive industry evolves in a context of global competition and performance-based regulations, whereas infrastructure design, construction, and maintenance are prone to be largely regulated by procedural standards and guide- lines, as is in part also the case for the provision of trans- port services. It is not surprising to find a wide variety of situations when analyzing innovation in the transport sector. In some areas, the industry is heavily investing in research; in others, the public sector is providing a far larger share of the resources. The parallel between what is happening in Europe and the current situation in the United States is striking. A review by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (Wiesenthal et al. 2011) partially substi- tutes for the lack of systematic statistics and information on the research funding in Europe. Some of the review’s key findings clarify the respective importance of private and public funding of transport research and their main respective areas of interest, and, within the public sec- tor, the relative importance of European compared with national funding. Taking various data sources for 2008, the report draws the following conclusions: • Public R&D investments from EU member states were some €3.6 billion in 2008. Public R&D investments were at that time largely concentrated in seven member states: Germany, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands. The EU funds added another €0.6 billion per year (Figure 4). • Private involvement is particularly focused on the vehicle dimension of transportation research. In the road sector, private investment is particularly relevant: pub- lic funds (2007 figures) from EU member states would reach €1.4 billion, or around only 4% of the total, and EU funds would provide some additional €100 million. Corporate funding provides the bulk of the research budget (Wiesenthal et al. 2011, p. 92).4 • The situation is the opposite for infrastructure and networks, in all transport modes. Public funding in this area would account for two-thirds of the total research effort. This would also indicate a crucial difference in research intensity between the automotive industry and the relatively conservative construction industry in the transport sector. 2.2 Key Participants in the Implementation of Transportation Research 2.2.1 United States The United States has a federal system of governance with a core commitment to markets and partnering with the private sector; therefore, it is not surprising that trans- portation research, development, and implementation are performed by a diverse set of public, quasi-public, and private entities. This multilayered system is conducive to innovation, with many states and localities acting as test beds for new transportation technologies. The following sample of entities involved directly or indirectly in trans- portation research implementation–commercialization suggests the diversity and complexity of the U.S. trans- portation research implementation ecosystem: • Organizations such as the American Associa- tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),5 the American Public Transportation Asso- ciation (APTA),6 and the Association of American Rail- 4 This observation is based on conclusions from the 2010 research project Evaluations to Realise a Common Approach to Self-Explaining European Roads (ERASER). 5 For more information on AASHTO, visit http://www.transporta tion.org/. 6 For information on APTA, visit http://www.apta.com.

73A p p e n d i x A : C o m m i s s i o n e d w h i t e p A p e r 1 roads (AAR)7 represent the owners and operators of U.S. transportation systems. These organizations not only represent the end-user community but are also often the source of research needs. • A significant portion of research and research implementation technology transfer is performed by uni- versity transportation centers (UTCs), which are under the administration of the Office of the Assistant Secre- tary for Research and Technology (OST-R).8 Research at these centers ranges from congestion relief to safer driv- ing, innovations in multimodal freight transportation, railroad safety, and durable infrastructure. Research is done by faculty and students. • Federal and state transportation organizations over- see much of the transportation innovation process. In addition to their own research programs, they have pro- gramwide responsibilities, including leadership roles in 7 For more information on AAR, visit http://www.aar.org. 8 OST-R, formerly the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), coordinates the U.S. DOT’s research pro- grams and is charged with advancing the deployment of cross-cutting technologies to improve the U.S. transportation system. As directed by Congress in its founding legislation, OST-R leads DOT in (a) coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing the department’s R&D pro- grams and activities; (b) advancing innovative technologies, including intelligent transportation systems; (c) performing comprehensive transportation statistics research, analysis, and reporting; and (d) pro- viding education and training in transportation and transportation- related fields. funding and staffing efforts (e.g., the FHWA Resource Center) and the definition of long-term research roadmaps. • Quasi-public entities such as TRB are major con- tributors to transportation research implementation. TRB is a unique organization formed by federal law under the National Academy of Sciences. In addition to its role in bringing together researchers and practitioners in all modes, TRB is also the home of the National Coop- erative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), wherein states and other organizations pool their funds to address national research issues. • Small businesses often have specific scientific and modeling capabilities needed by the U.S. DOT and its modes as well as by the state DOTs. The SBIR program is specifically designed to enable small businesses to par- ticipate in the development of technological innovations. U.S. DOT modes such as FTA and FHWA have active SBIR programs. The amount of funding allocated to the SBIR program is based on a percentage of the extramural research budget of the mode. • Dedicated modal research centers funded by the transportation research modes, which generally have fewer employees than federally funded research and development centers, include FAA’s William J. Hughes Research Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey; FHWA’s Turner–Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, Virginia; OST-R’s Volpe National Transportation Research Systems Center in Cambridge, Massachu- setts; and the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA’s) 1800 Pu b lic R & D in ve st m en t ( € m ill io n ) EU FP7 Public MS Cross- modal 2% Rail 6% Waterborne 8% Infrastructure 10% Air 38% Road 37% 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 Ai r Ra il W at er bo rn e Inf ra str uc tu re Cr os s-m od al Ro ad 200 0 Total public R&D ~€4.2bn FIGURE 4 Estimate of annualized public EU R&D investments (FP7 = 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development; MS = member states; bn = billion.) (Source: Wiesenthal et al. 2011.)

74 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n Transportation Technology Center (TTC), which is operated by AAR. • Private-sector investment in research, often directed toward the development of proprietary prod- ucts, is also a key source of innovation and research implementation–commercialization. Automobile man- ufacturers, for example, expend billions annually on research, both domestically and abroad, including R&D on automobiles, automobile bodies, trailers, and parts. Many major automobile manufacturers in the United States partner with U.S. public and private universities, such as the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, on a variety of high-technology projects, including solar vehicles. • The important role of university departments and associated research institutes is exemplified by the symbi- otic relationship between the California DOT (Caltrans) and the University of California, Berkeley. Smooth and timely transfer of research funds is possible because both entities are under the California State Government. • Some states with significant transportation bud- gets, such as California and New York, are key play- ers in the funding and implementation of transportation research. Some of the funds originate with the federal government, while other funding comes directly out of state government budgets. • Private sector contracts with private and public research organizations, which often include universities and colleges such as the Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology; the University of California, Berkeley; and the University of California, Davis, are used to fund inter- national researchers who are prohibited from directly receiving U.S. government funds. • Other cabinet-level departments and agencies that sponsor transportation research implementation include the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency. This funding has been espe- cially important to various modes, such as the Maritime Administration, that do not receive R&D funds from the U.S. DOT. Despite the major role played by the federal govern- ment in funding the diverse entities that make up the U.S. transportation research and research implemen- tation ecosystem, the U.S. DOT does not have a top- down (hegemonic) management role. As noted, groups such as TRB and AASHTO provide a channel for obtaining a bottom-up understanding of the problems that need research attention, and the U.S. DOT often uses these groups to help prioritize and coordinate the overall national research program. The U.S. DOT, through OST-R, does exercise a more proactive role in defining the focus of research conducted at the UTCs as well as some of the research conducted by modal organizations. Although OST-R is a logical coordinator of research and technology activities across the U.S. DOT, it is not currently mandated to do so. Modes such as FHWA have their own authorization legislation and, therefore, the authority to set their own research agendas. This transportation ecosystem is best described as mixed, with elements of centralized research agenda set- ting and other elements that are clearly decentralized and represented by a diverse compound of private and public stakeholders and state and local governments. It is a system that is robust but difficult to coordinate. For instance, it is been said that when working with state DOTs, you are really working with 50 separate govern- ments, each with its own priorities and laws. In some states, such as Arizona, the state DOT is prohibited from pursuing intellectual property through patents and exclusive licenses. In other states, the pursuit of intellec- tual property is encouraged.9 By virtue of the sheer number of private and public organizations involved in transportation research implementation–commercialization in the United States, it is logical to assume that research implementation is taking place on a massive scale. Indeed, a review of the diversity of programs involved in research implementation–commercialization shows that virtually every technique of effective technology transfer is currently in play, with additional methods under development. Table 1 cross-references a selection of the major research implementation–commercialization methods used by major U.S. transportation public organizations and stakeholders. Intellectual property tools such as patents, coopera- tive research and development agreements (CRADAs), and exclusive licensing are the only mechanism that is not used broadly in public transportation research implementation–commercialization in the United States. As discussed in more detail below, some modal administrations at the federal and state levels appear to be reluctant to use intellectual property as a research implementation–commercialization tool and view such activities as contrary to the public good and the proper role of government. Many modes have found effective research dissemination mechanisms that are consistent with their mission, the composition of their stakeholders, and the specific characteristics of the U.S. marketplace. 9 The highway system is owned, operated, and maintained by a highly decentralized group of mostly public agencies. More than 35,000 public agencies in the United States have highway transportation responsibilities. These agencies rely on the private sector, tradition- ally for materials and construction and increasingly for design, con- struction management, and maintenance. The private sector of the highway industry, which consists of tens of thousands of private firms that provide materials and services, is decentralized and geographi- cally diverse. See Special Report 261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology (TRB 2001).

75A p p e n d i x A : C o m m i s s i o n e d w h i t e p A p e r 1 For example, FTA announced on September 5, 2013, that $13.6 million in federal funding was available to advance the commercialization of American-made fuel cell buses for the transit industry.10 Eight projects were selected to receive a share of FY 2012 funds through FTA’s National Fuel Cell Bus Program. This program has provided nearly $90 million since 2006 to speed the development of fuel cell technology by tapping American innovation and enabling American manufacturers to avoid the valley of death discussed above. FTA is also an active champion for American companies and technologies internationally and has participated in a number of international forums to promote commercialization. The International Public Transportation Program (IPTP) engages in the active championing of innovative U.S. research through international conferences and workshops that have the potential to increase U.S. global market share and further improvements in U.S. transit operations. Examples of recent international research implementation efforts include the following: • Advanced propulsion vehicles. IPTP works with foreign countries to develop the next generation of vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells, battery electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, and other alternative energy technologies. • Standards. IPTP works to promote adoption of U.S. standards abroad. Harmonization of standards holds important benefits not only for increasing global market share but also for operational efficiency, safety, and security. 10 For information on FTA programs go to http://www.fta.dot.gov. • Accessibility and mobility. Since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act and subsequent legisla- tion, the United States has become a global leader on accessibility issues. IPTP shares this expertise with the international community and assists in improving mobil- ity for persons with disabilities abroad. • Sustainability and climate change. IPTP surveys and evaluates international policies and best practices related to the role of transit in lessening environmental impacts and promoting land use strategies that encour- age public transit use. For instance, FTA sponsored an international 2-day Workshop on Livable and Sustainable Communities in January 2011 with the French Ministry of Ecology, Energy, and Sustainable Development. A distinguished group of French officials met with high-level leaders from DOTs, APTA, and other transportation organiza- tions to discuss cooperative programs. During this work- shop, FTA championed the use of U.S. technologies. The meeting was the result of a memorandum of cooperation signed in December 2009 by former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and his coun- terpart Dominique Bussereau calling for the exchange of information and technology on topics such as conges- tion mitigation, climate change, livable communities, advanced vehicle technology, and improved intelligent transportation system applications. FTA is not alone in implementing innovative pro- grams to promote research dissemination over the valley of death and all the way to commercialization. FRA has also established an innovative mechanism for research implementation and technology transfer through the TABLE 1 Representative Selection of U.S Transportation Research Implementation Methods Organization Technology Push Programs Existence of Champions Pilots, Demon- strations, and Test Beds Senior Management Support for Priority Technologies Effective Marketing Through Publications and Conference Participation Public– Private Partnerships Commerciali- zation Funding Patents and Licensing DOT modes + + + + + ~ X X State DOTs ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X X OST-R and associated organizations + +   + + X  AASHTO + + +  + + X X TRB + + + + + + X X UTCs + + + + + + X X Federal trans- portation labsa + + + + + + X ~ Universities + + + + + + + + Note: + = significant activity; ~ = variable activity;  = new activity; X = little or no activity. aFAA’s William H. Hughes Research Center is an active user of patents and licenses to disseminate research. In contrast, FHWA’s Turner– Fairbanks Highway Research Center has not actively used intellectual property to promote research implementation.

76 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n construction and operation of the Transportation Tech- nology Center, Inc. (TTC), a major center for railroad technology testing and certification in Pueblo, Colora- do.11 The 52-square mile facility, which encompasses extensive track facilities and state-of-the-art research facilities, is operated by AAR. TTC enables isolated testing for all categories of freight and passenger rolling stock, vehicle and track components, and safety devices. This facility is a major mechanism for the implementa- tion of railroad-related research and represents a best practice for PPPs in the transportation research and commercialization sector. Once a technology is validated through TTC, it is virtually guaranteed to be widely used throughout the freight railroad sector.12 The railroad industry is increasingly ripe for innova- tion, given the growth in the natural resource component of its business. The industry as a whole grew by 800,000 units in 2013, half of which were handled by the Bur- lington Northern Santa Fe railroad (BNSF). Much of the growth has come from increased hauling of crude oil from the Bakken Shale formation in North Dakota. BNSF expects to haul 1 million barrels of crude oil per day by the end of 2014. BNSF also announced plans to spend a record $5 billion in capital in 2014, $1 billion more than it spent the previous year. Growing safety concerns related to the transport of petroleum will likely accelerate the implementation of safety innovations and practices. The U.S. railroad industry has long been inaccurately portrayed as the caboose of the innovation transporta- tion train. Nothing could be further from the truth. For instance, both sides of tracks were once lubricated to reduce wear and tear on wheels and locomotives, but sometimes when a train was chugging up a steep hill, the lubricant would cause the wheels to spin and stall. The innovative solution: solar-powered dispensers pump a dif- ferent substance—a friction modifier—on the tracks as a train approaches. “This new technique reduces wear but also provides adequate friction so the wheels don’t slip,” explains Wick Moorman, CEO of Norfolk Southern Cor- poration, one of the nation’s largest freight railroads. There are technology projects—big and small—in the freight rail industry that are contributing to more and more efficiency, making the United States the world leader in the transportation of freight by trains. The rail industry has been a pioneer of the digital age and a leader in technological advances, such as sensors that can detect when wheels and tracks are about to give out from stress. Railroads were an early adopter of technologies such as radio frequency identification, which uses tags and radio waves to track the flow of trains and cargo. The industry is now adopting wireless sensors to provide better informa- 11 For information on FRA research dissemination activities go to http://www.fra.dot.gov. 12 For information on TTC, visit http://www.aar.com/. tion on train movements to improve efficiency and safety while reducing greenhouse emissions (Mulloch 2014). Much innovation in the railroad industry is driven by information technology and the ability to have better planning tools by using real-time information. For exam- ple, locomotive engineers can now turn to an onboard, GPS-based computer system that tells them the optimum throttle, speed, and brake settings to achieve maximum fuel efficiency. This system takes into account the train’s length and weight and provides recommendations on how to operate the train based on hilly terrain, curves, and other track conditions. FTA’s use of GPS paral- lels FHWA’s deployment of GPS technology under the SHRP 2 program. Finally, it is important to consider the RailEdge Move- ment Planner, the railroad industry’s version of a next- generation air traffic control system. The planner gathers data about train schedules, traffic control systems, and the movement of trains relative to each other over a huge span of tracks. By analyzing all that information in real time, the system can optimize travel plans for the train, down to telling the engineer the best speed to travel at any given moment to keep the best overall flow and ensure safe operations. This system will be instrumental in maintain public confidence as the U.S. rail industry transports increasing supplies of domestic petroleum. The railroad industry’s research outcomes are truly amazing: non-petroleum-carrying freight trains are increasing their average speed as much as 4 miles per hour. While that might seem a trivial amount, in the freight world, every 1-mile-per-hour translates into $200 million a year in capital and expense savings. In another way of looking at it, a railroad running 20 trains per day between New York and Washington, D.C., could increase that frequency to 23 trains per day with RailEdge simply by utilizing the existing track more efficiently. Not all innovations in rail are technological, however. As in all industries and transportation sectors, solu- tions often rely on instituting common-sense ideas. For example, trains that transport paper products from mills have historically returned to the mills empty. A Norfolk Southern pilot project found a cost-effective, eco-friendly way to make better use of those returning trains: loading them with scrap paper that the mills use in their recycled paper (Mulloch 2014). With regard to the highway sector, it must be empha- sized that FHWA is constantly seeking new methods for enlarging its implementation–commercialization successes. FHWA recently announced that it has made roughly $30 million in incentive funding available to state transportation departments under its new Accelerated Innovation Deployment (AID) Demonstration program. The purpose of the AID Demonstration funding is to incentivize state DOTs and other agencies to implement and

77A p p e n d i x A : C o m m i s s i o n e d w h i t e p A p e r 1 adopt innovations in highway transportation. The program encourages the use of AID Demonstrations under the Every Day Counts initiative,13 which provides opportunities for improving the work of highway infrastructure planning, design, construction, and operation. The AID program is one aspect of the Technology and Innovation Deployment Program under the present surface transportation bill, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP- 21),14 which enables SHRP 2 implementation activities and the accelerated deployment of pavement technologies. Again, FHWA is discovering and implementing policies and practices that enable transportation innovations to traverse the valley of death. 2.2.2 European Union Excluding vehicle design and construction, surface transportation research in the European Union is strongly dependent on public programs particularly for disruptive (as opposed to incremental) innovation concepts (Aparicio et al. 2012). Research activities are usually financed by programs at both the EU level and the national (and eventually regional) level. In some countries (e.g., Germany, France, and the United Kingdom), national programs on transport research provide substantial funding opportunities; in other countries (e.g., Greece, Hungary, and Poland), research institutes rely mainly on EU programs, as national funding opportunities are modest. Indeed, it is doubtful that any level of significant transportation research would occur in Greece without EU funding. The network of entities involved in transportation research and technology transfer at the European level includes • ETPs, active in the various transport modes, with national correspondents in some countries;15 • International transport organizations of European or global character that help to structure joint research projects of transnational nature [e.g., the International Union of Railways (UIC), the Community of European Railways (CER), the European Conference of Transport Research Institutes (ECTRI), the Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories (FEHRL)]; • Dedicated national transport research centers, most of a public character and increasingly federated at the EU level through different networks such as FEHRL, 13 For information on the Every Day Counts initiative, go to www .fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/. 14 For information on current surface transport funding, go to www .fhwa.dot.gov/map21/. 15 Examples include the Advisory Council for Aviation Research and Innovation in Europe (ACARE), the European Rail Research Advisory Council (ERRAC), the European Road Transport Research Advisory Council (ERTRAC), the Waterborne ETP, and the European Construction Technology Platform (ECTP). the Forum of European Road Safety Research Institutes (FERSI), or ECTRI;16 • Universities, many of which have specialized trans- port research centers; • A variety of stakeholders, such as operators of transport services for passengers and freight; and • A wide realm of industries of all sizes (e.g., manu- facturers of transport equipment, construction compa- nies), many of which are organized through European networks such as the European Automobile Manufac- turers Association (ACEA), the Association of the Euro- 16 Although the bulk of the research activities of the national trans- port research centers frequently focuses on national research needs, with strong interaction with their respective governments (e.g., min- istries of transport and associated agencies), their participation in European research programs has always been substantial. Disruptive Technology “Disruptive technology” is a term coined by Harvard Business School profes- sor Clayton M. Christensen to describe a new technology that unexpectedly displaces an established technology. In his 1997 best-selling book, The Innovator’s Dilemma, Christensen separates new technology into two categories: sustaining and disruptive. Sustaining technol- ogy relies on incremental improvements to an already established technology. Disruptive tech- nology lacks refinement, often has performance problems because it is new, appeals to a limited audience, and may not yet have a proven practi- cal application (such was the case with Alexan- der Graham Bell’s “electrical speech machine,” now known as the telephone). In his book, Christensen points out that large corporations (as well as many government agencies) are designed to work with sustaining technologies. They excel at knowing their mar- ket, staying close to their customers, and having a mechanism in place to develop existing tech- nology. Conversely, they have trouble capitaliz- ing on the potential efficiencies, cost savings, or new marketing opportunities created by initially low-margin disruptive technologies. Using real- world examples to illustrate his point, Chris- tensen demonstrates how it is not unusual for a big corporation to dismiss the value of a dis- ruptive technology because it does not reinforce current company goals, only to be blindsided as the technology matures, gains a larger audience and market share, and threatens the status quo.

78 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n pean Rail Industry (UNIFE), the European Network of Construction Companies for Research and Development (ENCORD) and the European Construction Industry Federation (FIEC). Table 2 cross references a selection of the major research implementation methods used in EU transportation research. The European transport research agenda has been materialized through the priorities established in the Framework Programmes (every 7 years) and their annual working programs, which include the description of top- ics to be financed. These have been closely linked to the policy priorities of the European Union (the so-called Transport White Papers, published every 10 years). However, since 2005, the working programs have increasingly accommodated the priorities of European industry, as set up by the ETPs for each transport mode. Furthermore, an effort has been made to increase coop- eration with national programs: the European Research Area–Network (ERA-NET) structures were intended to create a pool of financial resources for research by com- bining national and European budgets. In the case of road transport, the ERA-NET structure has evolved to produce the first transnational research program, with the support of the Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR). Furthermore, the original top-down approach for research priorities has evolved toward a more flexible structure, so that researchers can have more freedom in defining topics and even apply for financing by using bottom-up proposals. In spite of regular efforts to reduce red tape, partici- pants have periodically raised concerns about the increas- ing bureaucratic complexity of European programs and about the level of effort and resources needed to prepare a competitive proposal. Concomitantly, the chances for approval have been reduced as a result of increased con- currence as national funding has declined over the past years and researchers have tried to compensate for this decline by presenting proposals on a higher number of topics at each new European call. Big organizational players could find a competitive advantage, as they could afford to dedicate more resources to the preparation of attractive proposals, whereas there would be a barrier to the entry of smaller research insti- tutes and to newcomers. In the research institutes of some EU cohesion countries, as much as 40% to 60% of TABLE 2 Representative Selection of EU Transportation Research Implementation Methods Organization Technology Push Programs Existence of Champions Pilots, Demon- strations, and Test Beds Senior Management Support for Priority Technologies Effective Marketing Through Publications and Conference Participation Public– Private Partnerships Commerciali- zation Funding Patents and Licensing European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation + X ~ X + + X + European Commission Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport + + + + + ~ X X National govern- ments + + + + + + ~ ~ National transporta- tion research centers + + + ~ ~ ~ X + European Technological Platforms X + ~ X + + X X Modal European organizations X + ~ X +  X X Regional and local governments ~ X + ~ ~ X X X Joint Research Centre, European Commission X X ~ ~ ~ X X X Universities + ~ ~ + + ~ ~ ~ Note: + = significant activity; ~ = variable activity;  = new activity; X = little or no activity.

79A p p e n d i x A : C o m m i s s i o n e d w h i t e p A p e r 1 a young researcher’s (postdoc’s) time is spent preparing research proposals at certain critical points during the year instead of making progress in completing disserta- tions and educational plans, doing research, attending symposia, or participating in research implementation and technology transfer training (interviews with young European transportation researchers, personal com- munication, January 23 and February 28, 2014). The consequence has been an alienated, anxious universe of young researchers who are increasingly tempted to move to more lucrative research settings, the result being an accelerated national brain drain. A related controversial topic is the extent to which more elaborated proposals actually result in better research results. European research programs typically require explicit dissemination and exploitation plans as a key part of the proposal. Projects are followed by assigned Euro- pean Commission officials, and programs are subject to midterm and final evaluation. Although there are iso- lated monitoring efforts, particularly for topics that are being continued over time, there has not been a compre- hensive effort at the EU level for assessing the level of actual implementation of research results. The lack of critical data is a systemic barrier to facilitating enhanced research implementation and technology transfer. The parallels between Europe and the United States could not be more obvious. The involvement of the industry in the EU Framework Research Programme has received increasing attention from policy makers since the mid-2000s, and this atten- tion increased in the first years of the economic crisis, as research and innovation were seen as key components for an economic recovery strategy. Since the early 2000s, the European research budget has financed PPP research efforts, known as Joint Research Initiatives or Joint Technology Initiatives. Aeronautics was the pioneering field for such PPP efforts (Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative), and the concept was transferred afterward (in a slightly different format) to the automotive sector (the Green Cars Initiative). There are advanced plans within Horizon 2020 to launch similar concepts for rail (e.g., Shift2Rail) and for waterborne transport. The involvement of the private sector in transportation research in Europe is far from uniform across areas. Cor- porate research efforts are substantial in the development of new vehicles and equipment, whereas the research activity of construction firms and other companies active in infrastructure and network development and opera- tions is significantly lower (Wiesenthal et al. 2011). The research activity funded by public budgets (European or national) is also different. In the case of European funds, this difference can be the result of the requirement to establish a multinational consortium with a variety of partners. In the area of vehicles and equipment, the private sector prefers to apply for European funding for activities at the basic or precommercialization stages, in which it can cooperate with otherwise competitive part- ners. For infrastructure and networks, many industries see the public sector as the final user of research results, as new practices and concepts usually need to be explicitly accepted in official standards and guidelines. 3 optimal implementation of tranSportation reSearch This section explores the critical conditions for optimal implementation of transportation research and looks at areas where opportunities may exist for the United States and Europe to achieve that status. It was earlier noted that there are numerous scientific implementation activities in the United States and the European Union at all levels and that there is evidence that changes are occurring that will enhance research implementation, including new fund- ing for the accelerated deployment of highway technolo- gies. Nevertheless, as recognized in the very focus of this EU-U.S. symposium and in recent statements by the TRB Executive Board, concerns about the rate and effective- ness of research implementation continue. Rather than provide a laundry list of factors and symptoms that impair the effectiveness of the implemen- tation of transportation research in the European Union and the United States, it is more productive to focus on four key conditions that, if realized, would support an optimized research implementation–commercialization process. These necessary (though not sufficient) condi- tions are as follows: Condition 1. A process that provides sufficient fund- ing for research implementation. Funding processes must provide sufficient resources to support both scien- tific research and research implementation–commercial- ization at all levels of government. The process would include predictable funding as well as a means to assure that funding is allocated in a way that supports bridges across the valley of death. Condition 2. Centralized planning and coordination. The use of a comprehensive planning process that spans modes will ensure that research and implementation resources are coordinated and directed at high-priority transportation needs. Such a process would likely lead to the optimized setting of research agendas, allocating resources on a com- petitive basis, and ensuring the prioritization of research implementation activities on a national (United States) and transnational (European Union) scale. Again, Secretary Foxx’s commitment to an integrated National Transporta- tion Plan is a critical step in the right direction. Condition 3. Effective data collection and analysis. Evaluation methods and mechanisms that can monitor the performance and effectiveness of research implemen-

80 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n tation strategies across and within modes must be insti- tuted. Such systems would include a means to collect and analyze data on the monetized and the discounted benefits and costs of implementing new transportation research. Condition 4. Effective use of intellectual property tools. A robust, integrated, and reinforcing research implementa- tion portfolio that includes the use of intellectual property tools, when warranted, to promote the commercialization of transportation research should be established. 3.1 Condition 1. A Process That Provides Sufficient Funding for Research Implementation 3.1.1 United States According to the TRB Executive Committee, with some major exceptions, “new technologies and innovations that promised more efficient and sustainable travel have been implemented haltingly and incompletely particu- larly in the public sector” (TRB 2013, p. 12). The TRB Executive Board points to long-needed upgrades to air traffic control systems and technologies that are immersed in controversy over the sharing of costs between the private and public sectors and uncertain fed- eral funding and the significant investments in informa- tion and communications technologies that have yet to produce dramatic changes in mobility, such as dynamic ride sharing and demand–response transit. Moreover, the effective management of congestion remains largely an intractable challenge despite large public investments in traffic management systems as well as real-world experiments (in both the United States and Europe) with congestion pricing systems. Moreover, there is an under- lying issue of equity, in that these mechanisms do not account for the ability to pay. One of the central factors that is increasingly responsi- ble for the suboptimal implementation of transportation research is the significant decline in federal funding for transportation research, which, in turn, influences invest- ments in implementation at all levels of government as well as by the private sector. When compared with other sectors, U.S. investments in transportation research are minimal. Although U.S. R&D has been increasing as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) and now approaches 3%, Figure 5 illustrates that transportation R&D has declined steadily in real terms to only 0.01% of GDP (TRB 2013, p. 14). Funding uncertainties are reflected in the increasing reluctance of states to cosponsor research implementa- tion activities with FHWA. For example, the Nevada State Transportation Board recently elected to delay a research program with FHWA that would have cost the agency $1 million over 4 years because of concerns about the availability of highway federal funds later in 2014. While the sum was relatively trivial, Governor Brian Sandoval stated that if the state was facing the potential of having to cut road projects later in the year because of a looming federal highway funding issue, the board had “to be cautious now about spending scarce funds on research” (Whaley 2014). This example under- scores the vulnerability of research implementation to funding uncertainties. After all, research generates little public interest, while infrastructure problems, including an abundance of potholes, can jeopardize the reelection chances of state and local public officials. Despite the reduction in transportation research fund- ing as a percentage of GDP and uncertainties regarding future federal funding levels, innovations continue to make it from conception all the way to implementation, including electronic stability control devices that save lives by reducing rollover crashes. Moreover, real-time data on traffic and parking are now used to aid traveler decision making via electronic signs and cell phone mes- sages. New vehicles, including trucks and locomotives (as reported earlier), are using sophisticated, energy- saving technologies. State-of-the-art logistics models are reducing shipping and inventory costs. 3.1.2 Europe The availability of research funding remains scarce in many countries of the European Union and has been further reduced by austerity policies. Both insufficient resources and lack of long-term funding have jeopar- dized the balanced development of transport research across the European Union. Successful implementation can be seen as the tip of a pyramid; only a minor percent- age of research results ultimately reaches the top. This consequence is due to the myriad of half-anon- ymous efforts that served to pave the way by discarding alternative approaches that were provided by a much wider community of researchers. In fact, it could be said that research is always a high-risk investment; success stories are grounded on previous (and sometimes expen- sive) failures. Lack of implementation of research results in Europe can be seen as an indicator of the lack of a sufficient number of researchers working in different but intercon- nected fields and geographical areas. From this perspec- tive, it is uncertain that increased funding in Horizon 2020 will be able to compensate for the weakened research structure caused by national austerity policies. Public funding is typically scarcer for demonstrations and pilots. As discussed earlier, a partial explanation for this scarcity is that demonstrations and pilots are closer to commercialization and raise concerns about intellec- tual property rights and the dedication of public funds in

81A p p e n d i x A : C o m m i s s i o n e d w h i t e p A p e r 1 a way that can directly or indirectly support the market position of particular companies. Furthermore, trans- port demonstrations and pilots usually require substan- tial investments and have to be associated with already planned construction projects or service concepts, par- ticularly when they relate to infrastructure. Again, paral- lels can be drawn between the European Union and the United States. Transport, particularly in the area of infrastructures and networks, is a conservative environment subject to well-consolidated regulations and standards that inhibit the application of innovations or proprietary technol- ogy. A risk-avoidance culture that more often than not results in avoidance of innovation prevails. Furthermore, the transport sector is strongly influenced by public poli- cies through regulations and through public investments, particularly in infrastructure. Thus, it is only natural for stakeholders to expect that decision makers in the pub- lic agencies will lead the innovation effort and establish goals for all the transport community. In spite of the efforts of EU transport research pro- grams to encourage broad research partnerships that include industrial partners and end users, the involve- ment of partners with actual commercial interest in the quick implementation of results remains rather unusual in research projects. Many exploitation and business plans are not detailed enough at the time a proposal is approved, so it is difficult for research officials to assess what can reasonably be expected for projects in terms of moving close enough to implementation. Pooling of national and European funds has been seen as a promising way to optimize limited resources and to speed up the process toward implementation. Under the leadership of CEDR, the road sector has been particularly active in this process. The ERA-NET Road Research scheme was active between 2006 and 2012 and has been continued by another CEDR Transna- tional Road Research Programme call launched in 2013. A similar ERA-NET concept, Infravation EN+, has also been set up with participation of the United States and several European countries. 3.2 Condition 2. Centralized Planning and Coordination 3.2.1 United States Although reduced funding has affected the rate at which transportation innovations are developed and imple- mented at both the federal and state levels, an additional obstacle to effective implementation of research is the organizational complexity associated with transporta- tion research implementation. While there are literally hundreds of organizations involved in transportation research implementation, there is no one organization capable of coordinating the national (public) transporta- tion agenda and the rigorous collection of data on imple- mentation and commercialization. Organizational complexity and redundancy can lead to the duplication of resource expenditures and the inability for one part of the organization to know what other parts are doing in the areas of research implementation. Whether the U.S. transportation sector as a whole knows what it does not know about research implementation is uncertain. 0.08 Pe rc en t 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 19 61 19 64 19 67 19 70 19 73 19 76 19 79 19 82 19 85 19 88 19 91 19 94 19 97 20 00 20 03 20 06 20 09 20 12 FIGURE 5 Transportation R&D as a percentage of GDP, 1961–2012. (Source: TRB 2013; used with permission.)

82 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n FHWA is an illustrative case study of how organiza- tions cope with these complexities. The agency manages multiple organizations involved with different facets of highway transportation, of which research implementa- tion is only one of many responsibilities. This diversity and organizational complexity are understandable, given the complex set of public and pri- vate stakeholders FHWA serves (e.g., Congress, tribal governments, state and local governments, other federal agencies, contactors, universities, and private firms). This complexity is also a byproduct of managing the largest and most advanced highway system in the world. While the level of federal funding is uncertain, FHWA’s responsibilities—including enhancing roadway safety, mobility, and reliability—have not disappeared. The Turner–Fairbanks Highway Research Center has launched a series of initiatives to facilitate coordinated research implementation, including hosting FHWA’s Office of Corporate Research, Technology, and Inno- vation Management (TRB 2005). This office develops and executes policy, budget, program management, and administrative mechanisms to enable a nationwide FHWA research, development, and technology program that is carried out in cooperation with public and private partners. The office develops and executes communica- tions and outreach that support FHWA-wide research, development, and technology programs and innovation delivery needs. The office supports Turner–Fairbanks Highway Research Center staff, other FHWA offices, and the FHWA Resource Center in the planning and evalu- ation of programs and projects and is responsible for communicating the benefits of new, priority technologies. Finally, the office also oversees the establishment of part- nerships with European transportation organizations. Through the leadership of the Office of Corporate Research, Technology, and Innovation Management, FHWA has identified 24 priority market-ready technolo- gies and innovations that the agency has designated as push technologies. Each month, the office’s website profiles one of these technologies. The list of priority market-ready technologies changes periodically as new technologies are added and others reach a level of deploy- ment that allows them to be removed from the priority list. However, the fatal flaw is that no system is in place to measure whether this process is producing concrete results and sufficient benefits relative to investment costs. Despite the centralization of many research imple- mentation activities, FHWA’s overall technology transfer and research implementation efforts are likely hampered by virtue of the sheer number of organizations that are involved in research implementation and technology trans- fer. One former FHWA employee noted it is sometimes the case that “organizations across FHWA do not know what others are doing in technology transfer and commercial- ization” (personal communication, March 7, 2014). Not only are multiple organizations within FHWA responsible for research implementation, but each of the major DOT modes [e.g., FTA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)] has its own dis- tinct processes for disseminating research. Coordination between modes is infrequent, if not random. Questions and concerns regarding research coordination include the UTC program administered by OST-R. The program funds five national UTCs with funding of up to $3.0 million per center per fiscal year; 10 regional UTCs, one of which must be dedicated to comprehensive transportation safety, with up to $2.75 million in funding per center per fiscal year; and up to 20 Tier 1 UTCs, which are also key champions of technology transfer and the implementation of research results, with up to $1.5 million per center per fiscal year. Each UTC is required to focus its research and technology transfer activities around one of the U.S. DOT’s strategic goals; however, there reportedly is insufficient coordination between the research activities of the UTCs and the priorities of the DOT modes, which also align their research with the DOT strategic plan. It is one thing to align research with general strategic goals; it is a more complicated task to ensure that the UTC research is supportive and reinforcing of modal priorities. It is suggestive that those institutions that have cen- tralized their activities in one organization have also realized increased commercialization successes. Emory University is representative of what universities have been doing for several decades to consolidate their intellectual property–related activities. Emory has one of the successful university one-stop shops for research implementation. Likewise, those federal agencies that have built successful technology transfer programs such as the National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have done so through the cen- tralization of their technology transfer activities. Con- sequently, they offer best practices and organizational models for consideration by the entire transportation research community. 3.2.2 Europe The EU Framework Programmes for transport research have played a significant role in promoting certain pol- icy approaches and in increasing cooperation among researchers across the continent, but it is uncertain that they can claim to have been able to set main directions or coordinate research implementation efforts in Europe. In the key leading European countries, such as Germany, national research remains much more substantial in terms of resources. European research is seen by most of the big

83A p p e n d i x A : C o m m i s s i o n e d w h i t e p A p e r 1 research players more as a helpful contributor in moving forward some particular concepts at a transnational level than as a leading reference for future research directions. Nevertheless, the EU experience has provided con- sensual mechanisms among countries for agreement on common research topics of shared interest—a mechanism increasingly open to key stakeholders, such as industry and the research community. This mechanism is no guar- antee, however, that the research topics selected will find a smoother path toward the implementation and com- mercialization of their results. On the contrary, it could be argued that the EU research agenda has mainly been open to exploratory research—an argument consistent with the nature of exploratory research being better suited to cooperation, whereas research closer to imple- mentation can be seen more as a field for competition and poorly suited to cooperation. European research programs have been influential, if not decisive, in setting up the research and policy agendas in certain areas, such as traffic safety, urban mobility, and multimodality, to cite a few examples. To strengthen more coordinated policies from govern- ments, research topics in these fields have been gener- ously financed through the Framework Programmes for exploring new policy approaches. Furthermore, European research programs in transport have encour- aged close cooperation among the different directorates within the European Commission with responsibilities in transport, research and innovation, and industrial policy, among other sectors. However, the experience in a few particular fields with a relatively low weight in the total research budget cannot change the general perception that it seems unlikely to expect the European Commission to undertake a relevant coordinating role in the future of transport research. Certainly, the consensual nature of agenda setting and decision making at the EU level can be further strengthened, and this collaborative Centralizing Research Implementation Functions for Improved Commercialization Performance: Emory University’s Office of Technology Transfer The Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) sup-ports the university’s mission through com- prehensive management of Emory innovations to maximize the benefit to the university and to humanity. OTT provides the following centralized services to the university community through a centralized and focused process: • Educate researchers about intellectual property and technology transfer; • Foster the identification of research results for disclosure of intellectual property; • Evaluate research disclosures for commercial viability; • Protect intellectual property and administer the protection process used (e.g., patent, trademark, copyright); • Market intellectual property; • Negotiate license arrangements for intellectual property; • Monitor existing licenses for compliance with contractual obligations, including financial obligations; • Collect and distribute all funds associated with licenses according to internal policies; • Comply with federal or research sponsor guide- lines for intellectual property; • Administer the transfer (in or out) of research materials; and • Facilitate the development of start-up compa- nies based on Emory intellectual property.

84 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n effort can indirectly influence national agenda setting in leading European countries and the priorities of the key industrial players. Even so, there is no guarantee of increased implementation of results. At best, fur- ther coordination can be expected at the level of open access to research results and ex post assessments of research and dissemination efforts. Public procurement can be seen as a powerful instru- ment for encouraging innovation. The European Com- mission has championed a sustained effort to stimulate innovation in environmental technologies since 2008 through the Green Public Procurement concept (Euro- pean Commission 2008).17 Since then, specific voluntary criteria for Green Public Procurement have been devel- oped for some sectors, including transport equipment. The European Commission has also set up a platform on public procurement of innovation as a way to sup- port public procurement authorities and stakeholders at large in their efforts to foster market uptake of innova- tive products.18 Furthermore, the European Parliament passed a legislation package on public procurement in January 2014; this package introduced new provisions that allow for environmental social considerations and innovation to be taken into account when public con- tracts are awarded. Transport is one of the sectors tar- geted by this legislation. 3.3 Condition 3. Effective Data Collection and Analysis 3.3.1 United States There are numerous examples of significant and suc- cessful advancements made by FHWA and others in implementing new technologies. Some of these include high-performance concrete, warm-mix asphalt, prefabri- cated bridges, the modern roundabout, and installation of rumble strips and median cables to improve safety. However, most of the information about these imple- mentation efforts is more anecdotal than systematic. There is no question that the impact of these technolo- gies has been significant; it is just difficult to measure the extent of that success and the overall investment that was needed to promote change. As noted, the United States does not have strong centralized coordination of research implementation activities, and implementation is therefore often highly decentralized, with organizations all over the country playing a part in the cycle of research dissemination 17 For more information on the European Commission’s Green Public Procurement program, go to http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/ index_en.htm. 18 For more information on the Procurement of Innovation Platform, go to https://www.innovation-procurement.org/. and commercialization. There also is no central source of implementation funding in the United States, which means that following the dollars as a means of track- ing activities is harder. A notable exception mentioned earlier is the Every Day Counts program, which not only has centralized coordination of the implemen- tation of specific market-ready technologies but also carefully tracks research implementation efforts across the nation. In general, there is a lack of data on the implemen- tation of transportation research. Most information is collected and stored by individual organizations. Many times, federal and state transportation organizations do not rigorously collect information on technologies devel- oped and commercialized with public funds or on the economic value associated with a commercialized tech- nology. Even the U.S. DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics lacks the mandate to collect data on transpor- tation research implementation or technology transfer. The lack of quantitative information (or useful met- rics) on technology transfer and research implementa- tion throughout the DOT and across the transportation modes prevents a fundamental assessment of whether the implementation of various research is resulting in widely used products. Again, it is irrefutable that there are significant research implementation activities in FHWA. Because of a lack of information, it is far less clear whether these activities are optimizing the transfer of transportation technologies. The only cross-government source of data on tech- nology transfer is provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which produces the annual report Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer (see, for example, NIST 2013). Unfortunately, the information presented is usually about 2 years old when published and is largely restricted to activities associated with the development and deployment of intellectual prop- erty. The implementation of a state-of-the-art research implementation–commercialization tracking system that includes multiple modes would provide an opportunity for the enhanced management of hundreds of federal and state transportation research activities. 3.3.1 Europe The European Union has deployed significant efforts in dissemination and evaluation of transport research results. Framework Programmes have followed midterm and final evaluations, most research projects have been followed by one European Commission technical offi- cial, and specific instruments have been put in place for public access to research results. However, successful dissemination and implementa- tion experiences are not easy to identify, even for stake-

85A p p e n d i x A : C o m m i s s i o n e d w h i t e p A p e r 1 holders actively involved in research projects. Once the research project is completed, most researchers move to another project and do not pay much attention to the potential implementation of their research results. There seems to be a pervasive divide between researchers and implementers. For example, it is not uncommon to find research leaders of EU projects unaware about the follow-ups of their project results. Furthermore, nonin- dustrial partners in research projects have little interest in exploitation plans. It seems there could be a miss- ing actor, namely, some kind of facilitator who would review research results and actively look for opportuni- ties for commercialization. In fact, little is known about the characteristics of implementation processes in the transport sector in Europe. There is an urgent need to improve systems for collecting data on implementa- tion and to establish some monitoring of implementa- tion processes with close cooperation between research administrations and industry. The EU approach has consistently attempted to increase efforts made by researchers in the implementa- tion and exploitation of their projects, with mixed results. Integrated PPP concepts such as the Joint Research Ini- tiatives can be successful for specific topics with clear public interest but cannot be generalized without raising serious accountability concerns about the use of public funding. Although the ETPs have been instrumental in providing roadmaps for key topics from research to final implementation, they concern only a small part of the EU research agenda with a strong modal character and a short- to medium-term perspective. Effective data collection and process analysis should also provide more insight on the traditional mismatch in European transport research between visions that are too ambitious and policies that are too cautious. Whereas transport research has worked hard to provide fresh technical and policy paradigms for fundamental transformations in the transport sector, aligned with the ambitious environmental policies set up by the European Union, policy making has been dominated by short-term concerns; lengthy discussions; and cautious, incremen- tal changes. European industry cannot be asked to move fast into innovative concepts when the policy experience is that the actual path of change has moved rather slowly in the past. 3.4 Condition 4. Effective Use of Intellectual Property Tools 3.4.1 United States On the one hand, the experience of the public sector of the U.S. transportation community with the use of intellectual property tools is, with some exceptions, limited. This limited experience stands in contrast to that of many other federal agencies. On the other hand, and when considered as a whole, the automobile and airline industries constitute a significant percentage of the total investment in transportation, and the companies that lead those sectors carefully protect their intellectual property assets domestically and internationally. This approach makes sense, considering the competitive value of their innovations and the importance of maintaining market position. In the United States, the approaches taken by the public and private sectors involved with transportation are clearly divergent. The nature of the implementation of transportation research in the United States is to encourage the widest distribution and use of new technology to benefit the traveling public. Anything that might be viewed as an impediment to broad, open dissemination is usually discouraged or simply ignored. Much of the research that is being implemented is more process or specification oriented (as noted in the previous examples of Superpave and high-performance concrete) and is not particularly amenable to protection through intellectual property. Nevertheless, there are several highway- related inventions that have been patented by the federal government or its contractors. As noted above, some within the public sector view the patenting and licensing of transportation technolo- gies developed with federal funds as contrary to their view that the public interest requires these products to remain available equally to all to develop and commer- cialize. The potential flaw in the view that all should be public is that unless the private sector has a reasonable chance of making a profit on an innovation, it will not invest in research products. Nonexclusive technology licensing, therefore, can be a barrier to rather than an incentive for research implementation. In addition, U.S. contracting processes are generally based on an arm’s length relationship with the private sector, where collaborative efforts are fairly rare. (The exception to this are the relatively new PPPs being devel- oped; however, those tend to focus more on infrastructure financing than on specific technologies). In contrast, at the National Cancer Institute, federal and private researchers typically work closely in the conduct of research. Despite recent initiatives by OST-R to place greater emphasis on intellectual property, including patents, exclusive licenses, and the use of CRADAs, most federal and state transportation agencies still make little use of intellectual property tools or the tracking of patent appli- cations by contractors under federal law. Some states, including California, have tried to develop and commercialize research, with some notable failures. For example, the Mobile Work Zone Protection System, or Balsi Beam, developed and patented by Caltrans expe- rienced several commercialization setbacks that soured

86 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n some state transportation officials regarding the use of patents and licensing to commercialize technologies. In contrast, other federal entities, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and NASA, have aggressively sought over the past 30 years to protect and commer- cialize intellectual property as well as to track patents sought by their contractors. In general, federal organi- zations that have supported intellectual property as an important mechanism for commercialization have a strong reputation as contributors to economic growth and innovation in the United States. According to the most recent data provided by federal agencies, in FY 2011 there were 7,798 active CRADAs in place between federal laboratories and external part- ners, 5,294 new inventions disclosed at federal facilities, 13,940 active licenses associated with federal labora- tory technologies, and approximately $167,543,000 in total licensing income associated with federal technology transfer activities (NIST 2013). As displayed in Table 3, the number of U.S. DOT active licenses, CRADAs, pat- ent applications, and new invention disclosures consti- tutes a miniscule percentage of the total. While intellectual property is infrequently used for promoting transportation research implementation– commercialization, it deserves additional consideration by federal and state transportation agencies as one among several possible deployment strategies (NIST 2013). 3.4.2 Europe Intellectual property rights are negotiated between partners in European research projects within consortium agree- ments. There are no specific rules on the contents of these consortium agreements, and the bigger partners in the con- sortium usually impose their model agreements on the oth- ers. As the research activities funded are usually far from commercialization, consortium agreements have not been controversial. However, it could be argued that the Euro- pean Commission could stimulate innovation by establish- ing clear rules for intellectual property rights concerning open access to research results, at least for projects that have been totally or substantially funded by public budgets (EUTRAIN 2013). Another reason for the different approach of cor- porate research in the areas of vehicles and infrastruc- tures is that transport infrastructure is probably a rather mature sector, in which the key research contributions were made decades ago. Large-scale demonstrators and real-scale test facilities were at the core of the research agenda 50 or 30 years ago, but research efforts are now focused on incremental improvements. Of course, this could change in the future, as hap- pened for rail infrastructure with the development of high-speed systems that required more stringent perfor- mance conditions; it could happen with climate change adaptation and smart infrastructure, which could again require a major review of traditional standards and guidelines. Furthermore, there is an increasing need for innovative maintenance for critical infrastructure in all transport modes, that is, for techniques for upgrading and retrofitting that can provide minimal operational disruptions, security, and no environmental damage. Intellectual property rights can be adequately protected under the current regime in the EU framework research programs. However, in many areas of transport research, results are still considered to be public or collective prop- erty. This is particularly the case with infrastructure con- struction and maintenance, in which practices are largely established by official standards and guidelines regularly revised through collective action. Innovation is more the result of slow collective reflection than the contribution of particular agents driven by a commercial perspective. Better protection of intellectual property rights may serve as a means to support innovation but should be coupled with a revision of current regulations to pro- vide for more opportunities for testing and making use of alternative approaches. Performance-based standards and guidelines are being deployed and are creating a more favorable environment. They would need to be combined with clearer regulations on the responsibili- ties of the various agents charged with providing high- quality transport services to the community. Ironically, a performance-based framework can stimulate both intellectual property rights and the gen- eralization of open-access research results. From both perspectives, agents interested in commercialization can have secured access to research results and also to com- TABLE 3 U.S. Department of Transportation Intellectual Property Statistics: FY 2011 Item Department of Transportation Total for 11 Federal Agencies with Significant R&D Budgets DOT Percentage of Total All active licenses 3 13,940 0.00021 All active CRADAs 25 7,798 0.0032 Patent applications 1 2,381 0.00041 New inventions 2 5,294 0.00037 Source: NIST 2013.

87A p p e n d i x A : C o m m i s s i o n e d w h i t e p A p e r 1 mercializing innovative products on the basis of their actual performance. 4 mythS that are impeding effective reSearch implementation The myths described below may refer to the United States, the European Union, or to both. They are inten- tionally presented in a summarized way to stimulate the discussions during the symposium. 4.1 Myth 1. Government funding and involve- ment should decrease as research approaches commercialization. Financial needs and perceived risks often actually increase as the deployment stage is approached (i.e., the valley of death). In the United States there are unfortu- nately transport modes that have a distinct unwilling- ness to support any technology into commercialization. Requests for commercialization support would most likely result in claims that the government was exercis- ing an unfair preference in supporting one company or technology over another. The question remains: What happens in cases where sufficient private-sector capital is not available or the creditworthiness demands are too severe? In the United States, one possible solution would be a national infrastructure bank, as some in Congress are proposing. Such a bank would have the legal authority to fund promising transportation technologies all the way through commercialization. As in the United States, in the European Union it is widely perceived that government funding should decrease as commercialization approaches. In fact, the percentage of public contribution is lower for demon- stration than for pure research activities, and close- to-market activities are generally not funded by EU programs. 4.2 Myth 2. The use of intellectual property to promote the implementation of transportation research is contrary to the proper role of govern- ment; moreover, all research information and tech- nologies developed by the federal government and paid for by taxpayers should remain open source. Despite the pervasiveness of this belief throughout the public transportation sector, the U.S. federal government has actively promoted the use of intellectual property to promote technology transfer through legislation passed over the past 30 years. Moreover, the federal agencies most successful at technology transfer (National Cancer Institute, NASA) have centralized and fully resourced intellectual property programs. Likewise, the U.S. DOT’s commitment to the development and commercialization of open source technologies has not always been successful. A process that enables systematic decisions for determin- ing whether a proprietary or an open process should be used to implement research results should be established. 4.3 Myth 3. Current methods of transportation research implementation are sufficient. Unfortunately, this hypothesis can be neither rigorously sustained nor rejected because of the lack of systemati- cally collected information on outcomes rather than out- puts. The collection of outcome information appears to be a problem for both federal and subfederal entities as well as an issue for both Europe and the United States. The U.S. Congress called for the development of better performance data in MAP-21. Although European research programs include sys- tematic midterm and final evaluations, the collection of factual information on actual project outcomes and implementation of results remains challenging. Evalua- tions are undertaken while research projects are still in progress or have just concluded; at those stages, imple- mentation is quite unlikely to have occurred yet. 4.4 Myth 4. Research programs are mainly modal in character; therefore, research implemen- tation should be left to modal agencies within the government. Each U.S. federal agency has the discretion to develop the specific, detailed policies and procedures that guide how technology transfer works with its organization (FLC 2005). Nevertheless, there remains a question of whether the overall technology transfer policy of a cabinet-level department should be set by the secretary and secretary- level organizations or at the modal level. Although there are no equivalent modal agencies within the European Commission and research programs and calls are administered in a unified way, the structure of research topics and the budget distribution remain largely influenced by the traditional borders between transport modes. Research implementation remains largely a modal-specific issue. Modal ETPs are expected to play a crucial role in the implementation of both intermodal and horizontal research results—an increasingly present outcome of European research. These ETPs face a more uncertain route toward implementation, with no particular champions or stakeholders to move the outcomes of their research forward.

88 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n 4.5 Myth 5. The golden time for innovation in the transport sector was many years ago. Only incremental improvements should be expected in what is already a quite mature system. The TRB Executive Committee suggests (in a strong although indirect way) a new process that should include innovative research implementation methods. Likewise, the European Commission has periodically highlighted the need for transport to enable fundamental technologi- cal changes and the need to base these changes on sound research. The reality is that segments of the transportation community in the European Union and the United States do not make full use of research results and prefer to adopt a cautious approach based on incremental changes. 4.6 Myth 6. Public funding from European pro- grams is instrumental in setting research priorities in Europe. There is a widespread belief in Europe that most transport research is funded by the European Commission through the Framework Programmes. In fact, in transport as in other sectors, most of the research activities in Europe are funded by national budgets. Research projects eli- gible for EU funding are those that can claim European added value, but this concept is elusive and the border- line between national and European research remains unclear. There is a case for discussing whether the Euro- pean Union should focus on basic research rather than on costly close-to-commercialization research because of the limited funds available as compared with many national programs. This is not to deny that the European research agenda may be leading the implementation pro- cess in some particular areas, such as traffic safety. 4.7 Myth 7. Implementation is mainly made by the industry. Implementation in European and U.S. surface transport research is very much driven by public policy and regula- tions. In addition to getting the industry more involved, it seems necessary to revise current policy and regula- tions to provide an innovation-friendly perspective and to further clarify actual implementation objectives and roadmaps. Much about the innovation implementation processes in transport remains poorly known. 4.8 Summary Comparing transport with information and communications technology, biotechnology, and so forth is in a certain way unfair: transport has quite different characteristics and its own path to innovation. Moreover, the policy process is driven largely by governments, and there are powerful public and private stakeholders that oppose any fundamental changes. Nevertheless, differences between transportation and other research sectors should not be used to excuse a visceral unwillingness to explore alternative approaches to research implementation, including commercialization of intellectual property. Without more clear signs about the future vision (and funding) for the transport sector, disruptive innovation in Europe and the United States (i.e., beyond automo- biles and other vehicles) will rightly be perceived by the private sector as a high-risk bid. At the same time, per- formance must be proven up front, before proprietary technologies are employed in publically funded projects. This is one among several key reasons why U.S. DOT Secretary Foxx’s commitment to developing an inte- grated national transportation plan is so important to the future of transportation in the United States. 5 hypotheSeS on the current tranSport innovation implementation SyStem The following hypotheses apply to both the United States and Europe: Hypothesis 1. The lack of integrated intellectual property systems that track contractor inventions aimed at promoting commercialization through patents and licenses will jeopardize any major improvements in the implementation of research. A policy environment favor- ing increased use of intellectual property tools (patents, licenses) is necessary to increase the level of transporta- tion research implementation in both the United States and Europe. Hypothesis 2. The complex ecology of the transport system, particularly in the area of research and research implementation, impedes the efficient use of research funds and optimal research implementation, particularly under conditions of incomplete knowledge and strong regulation. Hypothesis 3. Silo organizational structures that favor mode-based planning (Figure 6), such as those of the U.S. DOT, the European Commission, and many ministries of transport, jeopardize more effective research implementation. Hypothesis 4. Reduced funding for transportation research in the European Union and the United States could significantly slow enhancements to the research implementation process. Reduced funding in Europe is particularly onerous for many cohesion countries in the European Union and some of the less economically robust states in the United States.

89A p p e n d i x A : C o m m i s s i o n e d w h i t e p A p e r 1 Hypothesis 5. Transport is misperceived as a mature sector in which innovation naturally makes progress at a slow pace. This misperception makes the transport sector unattractive to new generations of talented researchers, innovators, investors, and entrepreneurs. For both Europe and the United States, coordinated investments in training and education and measuring the return on investment of transportation innovations would be necessary to revitalize the knowledge triangle (education, research, innovation). Hypothesis 6. Actual innovation in the transport sector usually follows an opportunistic approach that applies methodologies, solutions, and tools previously developed in other sectors. This approach jeopardizes any step or radical changes in the transport system independent of actions taking place in other sections. Blending the transport sector with emerging players to incorporate innovations from fields such as telecommunications, energy, and financial services would greatly accelerate research implementation and generate unique systems that could qualify for patents. Hypothesis 7. In the absence of economic and regu- latory incentives and changes (e.g., financial commer- cialization incentives, measurement and data collection tools, new regulatory frameworks, industrial targets, and voluntary commitments and coordination actions), the speed of implementation for innovative transporta- tion solutions will not significantly increase. Hypothesis 8. Because transport is a highly regulated sector, transport research implementation is, for many, closely embedded within standardization and strict guidelines for the approval and use of innovations and tied to governmental funding policies and decisions. The transportation governance framework plays a crucial role in facilitating or jeopardizing innovation, particularly in areas related to infrastructure and services. Hypothesis 9. Both the European Union and the United States have multiple opportunities to develop more effec- tive ways of collecting and analyzing information on the outcomes of transportation research implementation that is timely and includes the monetization of benefits and investments. The more effective collection and use of data would also improve greatly the management of the research implementation–technology transfer process. Hypothesis 10. The implementation of research results needs a clear commitment from the United States and the European Union in favor of disruptive change— an option that must also be properly justified to the pub- lic. This option remains elusive for both Europe and the United States, and a preference for incremental changes continues to prevail. Hypothesis 11. Should an option for systemwide change be adopted, political leadership, buoyed by consumer support, could make a much more effective use of market forces (via the exploitation of intellectual property) to enhance the penetration of best-performing transportation systems and products. Hypothesis 12. While the specific details are dif- ferent for the European Union and the United States, both entities are facing similar obstacles to accelerat- ing the implementation of transportation research. Thus, there is a significant opportunity for the Euro- pean Union and the United States to collaborate in the identification and implementation of policies and programs that will accelerate transportation research implementation–commercialization. acknowledgmentS The authors thank the European and U.S. members of the planning committee for the Second EU-U.S. Trans- portation Research Symposium as well as Joseph Toole, formerly of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and now senior principal, Kittelson & Associates, Inc., for their in-depth comments, recommendations, and graphical and textual contributions. The authors also thank Frank Smit, Policy Officer, European Commission, who adeptly man- aged the process of developing the white papers, and Mar- tine Micozzi, formerly of the Transportation Research Board, who played a critical role in the facilitation of ini- tial activities pertaining to this white paper. referenceS Abbreviations EUTRAIN European Transport Research Area Interna- tional Cooperation Activities FHWA Federal Highway Administration FLC Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technol- ogy Transfer NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology TRB Transportation Research Board Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. 2014. 2014 Innovation Report. http://www.autoalliance.org/auto-innovation/ 2014-innovation-report. Aparicio, Á., P. Cazzola, P. Christidis, B. Ciuffo, P. Dilara, G. George, L. Lonza, A. McKinnon, A. Miola, B. L. Nelldal, L. Ntziachristos, M. Popa, D. Schmitt, and C. Thiel. 2012. Scientific Assessment of Strategic Transport Technologies. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.FIGURE 6 Siloed organizational structure.

90 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n European Commission. 2008. Public Procurement for a Better Environment. COM (2008) 400 final. European Commission. 2011. Green Paper: From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation funding. COM (2011) 48. EUTRAIN. 2013. Towards a Framework for EU International Transport Research Cooperation. Deliverable 4.1. Euro- pean Transport Research Area International Cooperation Activities, Brussels, Belgium. FHWA. 2011. FHWA Releases New Guidance on Patented and Proprietary Products. Focus: Accelerating Infrastruc- ture Innovations, December, p. 7. http://www.fhwa.dot .gov/publications/focus/11dec/11dec.pdf. FLC. 2005. Federal Technology Transfer Legislation and Pol- icy. Total Technology, Inc. Jenkins, J., and S. Mansur. 2011. Bridging the Clean Energy Valleys of Death: Helping American Entrepreneurs Meet the Nation’s Energy Innovation Imperative. Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, Calif. Mulloch, J. 2014. Railroad Technologies Geared for Sustain- ability and Innovation. Wall Street Journal, on-line edition, March 19. NIST. 2013. Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer, Fiscal Year 2011, Summary Report to the President and Congress. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. TRB. 2001. Special Report 261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology. TRB, National Research Coun- cil, Washington, D.C. TRB. 2005. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 355: Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. TRB. 2013. Critical Issues in Transportation 2013. TR NEWS, No. 288, September–October. Whaley, S. 2014. Concern over Federal Road Funds Delays Action on Research Project. Las Vegas Review–Journal, March 10. Wiesenthal, T., G. Leduc, P. Cazzola, W. Schade, and J. Köhler. 2011. Mapping Innovation in the European Transport Sector: An Assessment of R&D Efforts and Priorities, Institutional Capacities, Drivers and Barriers to Innovation. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. additional reSourceS European Commission. 2007. European Union and International Best Practice in Research and Development. European Commission. 2011. Horizon 2020—The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. COM (2011) 808. European Commission. 2012. Research and Innovation for Europe’s Future Mobility: Developing a European Transport-Technology Strategy. COM (2012) 501. European–United States Transportation Research Collaboration. 2009. European–United States Transportation Research Collaboration: Challenges and Opportunities. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. EUTRAIN. 2013. Current Transport Research Governance, Funding and Prioritization Issues in Various Countries. Country Reports. European Transport Research Area International Cooperation Activities. Brussels, Belgium. FHWA. 2013. A Guide to Federal-Aid Programs and Projects. Office of Program Administration, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ programadmin/publicat.htm. TRB. 2014. SHRP 2 Products Chart. http://www.trb.org/ StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/SHRP2 Products.aspx.