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.

17 SESSION 2 Institutional Incentives and Disincentives to Successful Implementation Ann Brach, Second Strategic Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., USA Steve Phillips, Conference of European Directors of Roads, Paris, France Michael Trentacoste, Turner–Fairbank Highway Research Center, McLean, Virginia, USA Liam Breslin, Surface Transport Unit, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium insTiTuTional program experiences addressing research implemenTaTion Ann Brach Ann Brach explained that she would reflect on the lessons of implementation in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), an applied research program, as well as in the first SHRP program. SHRP 2 The key lesson from SHRP 2 was on the importance of specific strategic objectives—real-world needs—that drove the research agenda. The important point, Brach said, was that there was an overarching agenda, not just a set of individual research projects. She stressed that implementation is very context dependent and people oriented. In particular, implementation depends on investing time and money in development and creating a culture of innovation. Brach outlined the basics of the SHRP 2 program, which is almost at its completion. The program was authorized by the U.S. Congress in 2005 and was a short-term, focused effort with $223 million allotted for the R&D phase. This program has a duration of 9 years and will end in March 2015. The program is governed by stakeholders and has more than 50 committees and 500 committee members. SHRP 2 is a contract research program that has awarded 131 contracts to more than 400 research organizations. To date, the program has delivered 300 distinct deliverables that are packaged as 60 products. The strategic objectives were key to the program’s success. The objectives were identified by state departments of transportation (DOTs) and industry leaders who wanted to focus on customer-oriented goals. The objectives of SHRP 2 were to make highways safer (through revolutionary change by conducting a study of unprecedented scale to understand driver behavior); to fix the aging infrastructure of highways without causing undue delays to drivers (renewal); and to reduce congestion by increasing physical and operational capacity. In contrast to SHRP 2, the first SHRP program focused on materials and operations, such as the quality of asphalt pavements, deterioration in concrete structures, and snow and ice removal. Thus, the first SHRP program focused more on agency costs and savings, while SHRP 2 focused on end users. Rationale for SHRP 2’s Four Strategic Priorities Next, Brach described the strategic rationale of each of SHRP 2’s four focus areas: safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity. In the safety area, the biggest challenge was highway fatalities and injuries. In the United States, more than 30,000 people die annually on highways. That fig- ure would be well over 100,000 were it not for the safety improvements already made, on the basis of the increased number of vehicle miles traveled. Nonetheless, the figure is still too high. Driver behavior is the primary factor in most crashes and a contributing factor to almost all crashes, yet

18 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 the driver is the least understood factor in these crashes and is the hardest to study. Therefore, SHRP 2 decided to make a revolutionary improvement in highway safety by focusing on the driver to gain knowledge of driving behavior and interaction with the vehicle, roadway, and environment. Specifically, SHRP 2 saw the opportunity to do a naturalistic driving study by recruiting volunteers who agreed to have a variety of data-capturing instru- ments installed in their cars. The miniaturized sensors were inconspicuous but had computing capacity that allowed for the capture of real-world driving behavior. The sensors enabled the recording of drivers in their native habitat and delivered objective data on what happens before a crash, during a crash, or when a driver avoids a crash, as com- pared with normal driving. The next SHRP 2 focus area, renewal, has examined the state of aging infrastructure, both of the Interstate highway system and of other roads. Facilities are aging, but users and the economy depend on them, so the infra- structure cannot simply be taken offline to be repaired. Rather, the infrastructure needs to be renewed quickly, with minimal impact on users, and in a way that produces long-lasting facilities. Most states have devised fixes, so there is knowledge about how to carry out isolated proj- ects but not systemwide projects. The goal of this stra- tegic priority, therefore, was to provide tools to enable rapid systemwide renewal of infrastructure for ordinary projects by addressing the lack of standard methods and specifications and the lack of reliable performance infor- mation and by dealing with human and institutional chal- lenges such as risk and worker fatigue. Having standards and specifications will help states adopt a new practice or identify a successful practice from elsewhere. Simi- larly, to address topics such as fatigue, the transportation industry can look at how other industries have tackled these issues. For example, in the health care industry, nurses performing shift work face severe fatigue issues. The reliability focus area looked at travel time and the issue of congestion that happens with nonrecur- ring events. The objective was to provide agencies with knowledge and tools to systematically improve travel time reliability. The tactics addressed the need for data, perfor- mance measures, monitoring methods, analysis and mod- eling, and planning and design tools. In particular, the tactics included integrating information on the ordinary processes that state DOTs use and the institutional issues of running a system to be more operations oriented. This focus area dealt with a wide variety and high volume of data, and the area’s emphasis was more on management and institutional work than on engineering. The capacity focus area dealt with another aspect of congestion: the difficulty in obtaining approval for new capital projects that would increase capacity and in getting those projects built. The biggest impediment to increasing capacity through new construction is not a lack of knowledge about how to build a highway, but the lack of agreement among people with regard to eco- nomic, environmental, or community goals, especially across state lines. In short, the issue is one of people and institutions. The decision-making process requires that people have the right information (e.g., knowledge of the highway planning and permitting process) at the right time. The information must be available and transparent. Transparency will speed the approvals process, because people will not have to revisit questions or be confused about the roles of the multiple players. One outcome in this focus area was a web-based system to help a state DOT work its way through the capacity and project approval processes and keep track of its decisions. Context Is Important Brach next talked about the importance of context. Whereas basic research can be done in a vacuum (the more basic the research, the more it can be done in a vacuum), research that aims for implementation in the real world needs to take into account the economic, cultural, institutional, political, and technological contexts into which the innovation will be introduced. For example, in the first SHRP program, one research outcome was the development of a new asphalt, but then contractors in all 50 states who were part of the asphalt paving industry needed to be involved before the innovation could be implemented. In SHRP 2, the capacity focus area had to deal with political and institutional issues. Some states will adopt a new approach, while others have reasons or misconceptions that make them reluctant to adopt it. Those states will not adopt the new practice until they are convinced by their peers in other states that the new approach works and is valuable. For example, some states are reluctant to work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, so they need to learn from other states how the process works. Brach also noted that sometimes the innovation is in the context itself. That is, taking isolated technologies and plugging them into the context will be incremental innovation. In contrast, asking people to change their context or to organize themselves differently would be a step-change innovation that might be disruptive. The latter situation is an example of innovating the context itself. For example, the first SHRP program developed a new approach for snow and ice removal. The change was not simply to use a better kind of salt, which could have been plugged into the existing system. Rather, the new approach required pretreating and different positioning, so it required a different thought process rather than a simple substitution of a new salt. Similarly, in SHRP 2, the reliability focus area has worked on business practices and a phased approach to creating an operations-focused

19i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n c e n t i v e s a n d d i s i n c e n t i v e s state DOT. Changes cannot be implemented if the DOT will not innovate its institution, so SHRP 2 is helping state DOTs do that. People Are Important Brach added that just as context is important, so are people. Potential users will be more likely to implement an innovation if they have heard about it from a colleague or from one of their direct reports. They will not implement something just because of a slick sales talk. Users want to hear from their pavement engineer, for example, that the innovation will actually work. The greater the risk of implementing the innovation, the greater the need for people to trust the person who is promoting the innovation. Therefore, the first SHRP program tackled the need for buy-in of innovation by using the lead state approach, in which the states who were early adopters of an innovation told other states about their experiences with that innovation at a conference sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation and Officials (AASHTO) and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). In SHRP 2, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and AASHTO hired respected state DOT leaders to spearhead implementation efforts, because doing so was considered to be more effective than having staff from Washington, D.C., or researchers perform that func- tion. Implementation is more empirical than theoretical, Brach said. Potential users need to see the innovation in use and be able to interact with it or test it themselves, not just read about it. That is why pilot projects and demonstrations are vital. In SHRP 2, the renewal, reli- ability, and capacity focus areas are using pilot projects and demonstrations. Workshops are also important, and SHRP 2’s safety focus area is conducting workshops on using the project outcomes. Finally, it is essential for potential users to travel and have opportunities to talk with others and see how innovations work. Idealized Linear Process Brach discussed the idealized linear process of how research moves to implementation (Figure 1). The assumption implied in this idealized view is that research produces ready-to-use products. Brach posited that development may be a missing link in this process (Figure 2). In her opinion, research does not produce ready-to- use products. “They’re not shrink-wrapped solutions,” she said. Therefore, after the research phase, during which study and experimentation lead to developing new knowledge, tools, and methods, a development phase is needed. The development phase includes lab tests, field tests, modifications, market research, creation of ancillary tools, and technical assistance before the concept is marketed to users. The development phase is not trivial; it takes time and can cost several times more than the research phase. The development phase is perceived as less creative, but in fact it requires a different kind of creativity. This phase also shows the weak points of the research results, which researchers do not always want to see, and it requires confrontation of realities that may contradict original beliefs or circumstances. However, the development phase is necessary to address the context and people. Culture of Innovation Brach concluded with a discussion of the culture of innovation. Culture is ingrained in people and is built up over time and passed on through generations. Therefore, building a culture of innovation takes time, but the culture will endure. FIguRE 1 The idealized linear process. Implied assumption: research produces ready-to-use products. Study, experimentation to develop new knowledge, tools, methods Product is marketed to users Routine use by ordinary users Research Use Marketing

20 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 Building a culture of innovation requires respecting how people learn; both theory and practice are needed. Brach suggested putting the best people into development and being grateful that they “sweat the details,” because that is how to move products correctly into practice. Some of the key points to understand about building a culture of innovation are that the process is multistepped, iterative, and sometimes unpredictable. There will be failures, but they should be treated as something to learn from, not as shortcomings that require punishment. Another important point is funding activities such as pilots and demonstrations so that the innovation can be tested, which will help it get implemented and be used. Finally, although funding of travel for key staff may be politically difficult to achieve, it is important so that they can talk openly with their peers. People often do not write or publish information about how an implementation failed or how a product failed to live up to expectations; they are more likely to discuss a product’s shortcomings during informal conversations. Sharing such valuable information will help get innovations implemented. building research programs for deploymenT: road auThoriTies Working TogeTher Steve Phillips Steve Phillips began by providing background on the Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR): how the program was built, its funding instruments, and its outcomes. CEDR does not have all the answers yet with regard to building a research program geared toward deployment, he said, but it is achieving successes. Conference of European Directors of Roads CEDR is a nonprofit foundation based in Paris. Its membership comprises 27 European directors, and its presidency rotates annually. An interesting challenge that the organization faced has been how to get road directors to work together. CEDR’s mission encompasses six main issues: 1. Looking at what is coming in the future; 2. Creating a network of personal contacts among road directors internationally (innovation will not hap- pen without a network that involves people talking about the innovations they have tried); 3. Being a platform for understanding and responding to common problems; 4. Developing a strong involvement in EU developments on matters relating to the road system and its infrastructure; 5. Using existing representation in relevant interna- tional groups for the future benefit of other countries, regions, and organizations developing standards (many countries in Europe are involved in standards bodies, but coordination is lacking; CEDR can provide some of that coordination and can give its members an opportunity to resolve their issues before getting into discussions on standards); and FIguRE 2 The missing link.

21i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n c e n t i v e s a n d d i s i n c e n t i v e s 6. Making use of the results of common (cross- national) research as well as the research results of each member country, which is necessary for implementing innovation. Before the founding of CEDR, road administrators across Europe were looking at common research to identify research needs at the European level. The needs were presented to the road directors, who then looked for local funding. To move forward, however, there was a need to professionalize the approach for selecting research projects for funding and to make that approach more recognized, which is how CEDR and the European Research Area–Network (ERA-NET) got their start and support from the European Commission. ERA-NET Road Research and ERA-NET Plus Infravation After 2003, when CEDR was formed, the ERA-NET Road Research project (ERA-NET ROAD) lasted from 2005 to 2011. After that, CEDR continued with its own common procurement of research. Next, Infravation, an international cooperative infrastructure innovation program, was launched in 2014. ERA-NET ROAD 1 (ENR1) cooperation (from June 2005 to March 2009) was financed by the European Commission, which gave funding to the 11 different partners of the project to develop common tools and common ways of working. ERA-NET ROAD 2 (ENR2), also financed by the European Commission, continued on after ENR1 and committed to use 10% of the National Roads Authori- ties’ research budget on transnational collaborative research by 2013. ENR follows a four-step process to identify research needs (Figure 3). The first step is to see if the research has been done elsewhere and, if so, to determine its relevance and whether it can be used. If previous research on the topic is nonexistent or irrelevant but the need for the research exists throughout the European Union, then the European Commission might fund it. If the existing research is only applicable for some countries, then those countries can fund the research jointly. This collaboration approach reduces duplication of research. Previously, each road operator worked independently with its own research labs in its home country, a practice that led to much duplication of effort. Three other aims of collaborative research are to provide for an exchange of knowledge, improve the quality of research to identify international best practices, and provide better value for the money invested. The quality of research also improves when there is an element of competition. One country funding its own research does not drive competition. Moreover, by pooling their research money, countries can fund bigger projects and get more bang for their buck, Phillips said. FIguRE 3 ENR four-step process. (Source: CEDR.) No No NoNo Yes Yes YesYes Undertake national research project Undertake collaboration project or program (e.g., ERA-NET ROAD) EC or other framework project or program Is there trans- national interest or need? Is there Europe-wide interest or need? Use previous research Are previous research results relevant? Has research been carried out elsewhere? Identify research need

22 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 The main ENR tasks were to develop toolkits (namely procedures for coordination, management, and monitoring); to develop seven strategic research opportunities; and to launch a transnationally funded joint program with a common bank account. ERA- NET’s first strategic research opportunities included safety in road design, coming to grips with climate change, and asset management. CEDR Transnational Road Research Program Next, Phillips described the process of CEDR’s transnational road research program. First, descriptions of research needs are developed. Second, commitments are obtained from the funding countries. Third, there is an open call for proposals across all of Europe, not just from the funding countries. Fourth is the evaluation process, and then a program executive board is created from members of each country that contributed funds, so that each has a seat in overseeing the running of the project. Individual members of the program executive board are appointed as managers for a project. Infravation (infrastructure innovation) is a scaled-up research program that focuses on projects that are too large for a lone country to do on its own. The joint effort also increases market uptake and reduces the valley of death, because numerous countries are looking for results from the projects. In short, Infravation pools expertise, experience, and budgets, and it increases the potential market uptake. The scope of Infravation is broader than that of ENR, which was problem focused. European Commission projects are high risk; Infravation projects match these projects in size but have a greater focus on implementation than European Commission transportation research projects do (Figure 4). Innovation and Implementation Phillips showed a slide of the innovation adoption curve (Figure 5) and highlighted that the innovators who take up the innovation first are “well-informed customers who are able to try the unproven product.” In the context of road projects, road directors are in a position of being able to try new products. The adoption curves can vary for directors who are implementing a product, because they all require different levels of proof that the product works. Road directors cannot be scared of risk, however, because then innovation cannot happen, Phillips said. Phillips concluded with some comments based on his experience with implementation. First, because of the way ENR was developed, there have been good cases of implementation, but the implementation has been focused on the countries involved. It has not expanded to other countries. One program—the asset management research program—had money left at the end of the research to develop case studies. The issue remains that those involved in the definition of the research were the ones who implemented the research, so the range of users is not yet broad, Phillips said. Another issue is that English is not the dominant language everywhere; as a result, uptake decreases when results are published only in English. The final issue, which relates to intellectual property and ownership of the results, is a point of discussion on improving the understanding and application of intellectual property rights related to transport research. FIguRE 4 Intended focus of Infravation (NRA = National Road Administration}. (Source: CEDR.) 0 2 4 6 Risk level Problem focus Implementation Demonstration Technology focus Project size (impact) CEDR (ENR) projects Infravation EC FP projects Low risk Controlled risk High risk Problem focused Challenge focused Technology focused Immediately implementable Demonstrate implementation Prototype NRA (usually) owns results Industry owns and shares results Industry owns result

23i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n c e n t i v e s a n d d i s i n c e n t i v e s There are attempts to encourage ownership by those who take on the risk of doing the research, but there is still the need to protect road owners when they want to use the research for their own purposes and eventually implement the products of research through incorporation in their standards of practice. The challenge is how to finesse both sides—the side that funds the research and the side that implements it. discussanT 1: michael TrenTacosTe Michael Trentacoste linked the presentations in this session to the white papers presented in the first session, noting that they all described what has proven successful in the past and provided examples on which to build. For example, Ann Brach talked about the strategic objectives defined by stakeholders at the start to set the research topic areas. SHRP 2 exemplified this strategy because it involved using stakeholders during the research stage to ensure that the products were practical. The entity that proposed the project took the lead on it, but the stakeholders to whom the results would be delivered commented on the research and took the lead in the initial pilots as early adopters. The involvement of stakeholders in SHRP 2 provided the opportunity for the stakeholders to be involved in piloting the research products, Trentacoste said. The second white paper mentioned communication as an issue, and communication is also related to this session’s presentations. Specifically, communication involves ensuring that the entire population of stake- holders knows what results will come out of SHRP 2 or ERA-NET products and is prepared for the results. Another point of commonality was leadership buy-in, such as leadership buy-in from the states in overseeing SHRP 2. Leadership on the federal level was important for the program. Trentacoste noted the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that was drawn up between TRB and partners, in which the parties defined how they would cooperate and agreed that implementation would be critical. That MOU on how they would move forward was a critical aspect of implementation. When Congress did not pass new legislation to fund the implementation of SHRP 2, TRB and state organizations said there would be no funding of new research and instead used available money to implement existing research outcomes until they got approval for new funding. This decision to fund implementation of existing research rather than pursue new research was made so that the value derived from the research could be shown. Ensuring that there was funding for implementation was a key ingredient for getting early adopters. Trentacoste quoted U.S. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx, who said that it is not possible to fund all the new research needs; therefore, more value must be gotten from current investments, and the way to get that value is through innovation. discussanT 2: liam breslin Liam Breslin began by saying that as a result of this series of EU-U.S. collaboration symposia initiated by FIguRE 5 Innovation adoption. Innovators are well-informed customers who are able to try unproven products. Early adopters are usually educated opinion leaders. The early majority are careful consumers who tend to avoid risk. The late majority are somewhat skeptical customers. Laggards are those who avoid change. (Source: E. M. Rodgers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., Free Press, New York, 2003, p. 281.) Laggards Classes of Adopters Late Adopters Early Majority Early Adopters Innovators

24 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 Damiani and TRB, two new EU-U.S. research projects had begun. Both projects pair researchers in Spain and Portugal with two FHWA projects. Breslin provided this example to show that this series of symposia was leading to collaboration between the European Union and the United States and that the series can continue to result in cross-Atlantic twinning. Breslin praised Brach’s report on SHRP 2 and its philos- ophy because the SHRP 2 approach was different from the approach that has been taken in Europe. He appreciated its lessons and different perspective and liked how SHRP 2 aimed to be revolutionary in its approach and to look directly at drivers “in their natural habitats.” He also liked that renewal was part of the operating process. Finally, he liked how SHRP 2 approached congestion by looking at the opposition and how to facilitate understanding. He said that in the European Union today, if an entity wanted to build more highways, people would not want that, so it would not be easy to do. Brach’s emphasis on the impor- tance of people is true, he said. Breslin then commented on the difficulty of getting different countries and authorities to work together. The European Union has 28 member states from Ireland to Sweden to Portugal and has countries such as Iceland wanting to be part of it. In short, the authorities working together are diverse. Transportation research cooperation began in 2005 with ENR1, which showed that the coun- tries could work together. The transportation research budget in Europe is only 6% of the total research budget. The other 94% is supplied by individual countries work- ing on their own and with industry, so the EU funding is like a glue that ties it together. On the topic of joint research collaboration, Breslin noted a comment by the European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, Máire Geoghegan- Quinn, on food safety research being done in Europe. The commissioner, who was to be at the Transport Research Arena (TRA) annual meeting to be held in Paris on April 11–17, 2014, said she was horrified when she saw that 26 countries were working independently on salmonella research, because they could be working together rather than each doing it separately. ENR1 got countries working together on transportation issues, and that is continuing with ENR2. Everyone is taking chances together, Breslin said. The European Commission is now looking at the subsequent step. Breslin referred back to Terry Hill’s point about construction and roads: can they step up to the plate? In the railroad industry, after hard work, Shift²Rail was implemented. Shift²Rail is the first Euro- pean rail joint technology initiative to seek focused research and innovation and market-driven solutions by accelerating the integration of new and advanced tech- nologies into innovative rail product solutions. There were obstacles to the implementation of Shift²Rail, but they were overcome. Breslin concluded by asking what will be next after Infravation. full group discussion John Mason initiated the full group discussion by refer- ring back to Beverly Scott’s comment that transporta- tion researchers are mostly having a conversation with themselves. He asked individuals in the group to con- sider what they would say to decision makers about the incentives and disincentives to move research to implementation. Breslin, in response to a participant’s question about the old ENR and Infravation, said that those two projects are focused projects delivering intermediate development but bringing basic research to a knowledge level that can be used by practitioners. In response to Breslin’s question about next steps, Phillips said that Infravation is just starting but that the next steps would be about how to widen the transitional program and remain focused on readily implementable research. Perhaps the word “research” should be taken out of the title and replaced with “innovation,” he suggested. FHWA is a partner in Infravation, as are non- European counties such as Israel. Infravation focuses on challenges and is taking risks. Perhaps there will be an opportunity in the future to blur the distinction between the Infravation research and the European Commission’s research, Phillips said. The European Commission is one of the funders of Infravation. The original vision was for Infravation to be multimodal and take a more holistic approach to infrastructure research. One of the next steps could be to take advantage of the benefits of public–private partnerships, such as the green car initiative that already exists and is being led by the automotive sector. The multimodality objective could also be improved on. It would be good to address a broad range of infrastructure topics to be funded and not put them in silos, he said. Breslin added that Infravation is a follow-on to ENR and that it includes non-EU countries as well as countries within the European Union and has an emphasis on demonstration. Infravation is challenge focused and multimodal. Cristina Marolda of the European Commission Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport and cochair of Horizon 2020 said that, in particular, she cares about all aspects of the transportation system, including infrastructure. Infrastructure is multimodal and therefore cannot focus just on one mode. With regard to Phillips’ cube graph (Figure 4), she said that all

25i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n c e n t i v e s a n d d i s i n c e n t i v e s of the elements are needed: you cannot focus just on one element. She agreed with Breslin about a continuation of Infravation but said perhaps its scope and framing could be expanded to support more focus on the infrastructure problem. The question today is how and where the European Commission can give added value. Who are the stakeholders in each of these? Should the effort focus on one phase of the innovation chain? Patrick Malléjacq said he worked with CEDR on a road project and in 2010 had to convince CEDR to continue funding it. A key element of convincing them to continue funding was demonstrating how useful the project was. “Demonstrate its usefulness or pull the plug,” Malléjacq said. Continuation of funding is a strong motivator, he said, and the project stepped up its simulations. The project’s researchers also asked road administrators to talk with their road administrator colleagues about how much money they saved on maintenance costs after they implemented the research results. Brach talked about disincentives from her SHRP 2 expe- rience. She said that one thing she heard a lot was that for decades, state DOTs were losing staff because of retirements and because of political and economic rea- sons. As a result, the state DOTs had smaller staffs, and institutional memory was being lost and not replaced. Younger people did not know the context. Innovation takes time to learn, and people do not have the time. Thus, SHRP 2 provides technical support in the form of consultants who are paid to help train state DOT staff. SHRP 2 is paying lead states to engage others. It is a practical move that was in direct response to a disincen- tive to adopt the innovation. Joris Al added that another disincentive is that the implementing agencies do not know where a particular kind of research has been implemented, even in their own countries. Is there a responsibility to provide information on the implementation of one’s research? Trentacoste answered that in the United States, the Every Day Counts initiative at FHWA is a partnership between the federal government and the states. States own their highways, and the federal program wanted to do more than just push innovation out. Therefore, states that have adopted an innovation measure its impacts. There was enough of a sampling to measure the cost savings. The Every Day Counts program keeps track of which states have implemented a new tech- nology and has mapped out deployment information about that technology. The deployment information is available online, so that others can see who has imple- mented it. Thus, the results are communicated. That practice has carried over into the SHRP 2 program to show not just what research was accomplished, but who implemented it. Also, implementation of research funding is advertised by AASHTO. For lead adopters to get funding, they must work with a contractor to measure the outcome and evaluate the implementation results. That is what the funding provides: getting the research piloted so that it can be spread. The evalu- ation measures the output and outcome to see the impact and documents both what worked and what did not. Breslin agreed that more should be done to publicize the research that has been implemented. The European Commission has a portal called the Transport Research & Innovation Portal [http://www.transport-research .info/web/] that has all the transportation research activities taking place at the European and national levels. The website provides program information by country and by organization. That is one step to communicating transportation research. In addition, most modes have technology platforms. That is, modes such as rail, auto, and air all set out the technology road map, such as electrification, and show how they are achieving their targets. Not all modes do it, but it is useful. TRA, whose annual meeting was on April 11–14, 2014, also does that. ERA-NET, in which different countries work together, also provides a way for countries to compare programs and talk together. Phillips agreed that someone has to take responsibil- ity for implementation. Twelve years ago, there was a European conference on transportation research, and the intent was that there was a need to develop platforms that were not just for researchers but also for practitioners and users to report on what they had used. Phillips said that for a long time he has been a fan of the U.S. Local Technology Assistance Program model, which takes the best of the results and develops them to a national level. Harold Paul has a domestic transportation research pro- gram management scan program that has a big focus on implementation, Phillips said. Pam Hutton of AASHTO responded to the question about who is responsible for documenting implementation. She said that FHWA and AASHTO believe that they are responsible for documenting research implementation. For the program evaluation aspect, AASHTO cooperates with FHWA to provide case studies for nearly all the products being implemented as users implement them. FHWA funds implementation assistance by providing money to AASHTO so that states can document implementation. States implement the research products and provide data that become part of the case studies. Alessandro Damiani commented on the issue raised by Joris Al about research follow-up and monitoring. Damiani asked Brach whether a systematic, postprogram follow-up was incorporated into the overall program management.

26 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 Brach answered that at TRB there were no plans to monitor beyond the end of the program because the unit will be dissolved, but that FHWA and AASHTO would be doing the case studies. Damiani then posed a similar question to Phillips: how many deliverables came out of Infravation, and does Infravation have a way to monitor downstream implementation? Phillips prefaced his answer by saying that SHRP 2 was a program of more than $200 million that went on for 9 years and delivered 300 projects. To date, Infrava- tion has delivered 67 projects, but some of those projects had multiple outputs, so the total is probably about 100 outputs. All the outputs are widely disseminated at EU seminars at the end of every program. Two years after the completion of a program, road directors are invited to present what has happened with the implementations in their countries. The most recent seminar was about the safety program, so the results of those implementa- tions were presented. These follow-up discussions take place after 2 years and after 5 years. Some in the group are also looking at AASHTO and SHRP 2 as models for how to improve. Jesús Rodríguez commented on the vital issue (and high cost) of expanding the life of existing infrastructure. New Eurocodes will cover the evaluation of existing structures. He said it was interesting to consider that construction processes could adapt existing bridges to new functional requirements. Infrastructure needs innovation but cannot wait for Infravation. Infravation includes some of this, but more progress is needed now because megaprojects are already taking place—the main Spanish construction groups are working on major projects right now, including on existing infrastructure. Lynn Peterson of the Washington State DOT said she was “all about the practical.” She urged consideration of the pros and cons of adding a clause to the reauthorization of transportation funding. The clause would stipulate that if federal money is invested in a project, the project needs to document how the research was used and what cost savings or cost efficiency was achieved. AASHTO could help track the use and cost savings, or there could be an app to crowdsource the data. At TRB’s annual meeting in 2014, a case study on “Crowdsourcing and Its Application to Transportation Data Collection and Management” was presented (1). Following that advice, AASHTO and TRB do not have to try to get all implementation data themselves, she suggested. Rather, the implementation data could be crowdsourced, so that engineers could share their results. Hutton said AASHTO provides state DOTs with a contact so that peers can talk to each other, because championing a particular research effort or implementing a new tool is more readily acceptable if one hears about it from a peer. That kind of interaction is more useful than brochures, she said. Terry Hill returned to a comment Brach had made about human capital, remarking that given all the young people coming into the field, there is a shortage of knowledge about how to commission research projects. It is difficult to expect young people to know how to fund radical innovation if they have never done it. They do not know how to make tough calls on investments, he said. To tackle this, Hill helped develop a leadership academy for infrastructure innovation at the Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. This academy helps new transportation professionals learn from experienced professionals from a variety of countries. The fact that the program was at Oxford helped attract students. This type of leadership academy could be a model for the U.S. states that are seeing their experienced personnel retire. Brach added that AASHTO is hiring those retired people, and that FHWA is providing technical assistance by paying consultants who are knowledgeable about innovation and can teach the new hires. Munro asked Trentacoste where one could go to get the quantitative data on implementation that he mentioned. Trentacoste replied that the FHWA website has a page on the evaluation reports being published. Soon there will also be information on SHRP 2 evaluations and other FHWA programs. The data are listed by technology and indicate the number of states that have implemented the innovation (e.g., warm-mix asphalt or roundabouts). Trentacoste also added that an implemen- tation done once is just a demonstration, but if states change their design criteria or their design manuals, then the innovation can be considered in all design contracts. Munro asked a follow-up question about the percentage of innovations tracked in the systems Trentacoste mentioned. Trentacoste replied that SHRP 2 had upwards of 60 innovations and that Every Day Counts had seven or eight in each Every Day Counts area. James Bryant of TRB asked Trentacoste to elaborate on the culture of innovation, why FHWA kicked off Every Day Counts, and how states can create innovation cultures. Trentacoste replied that when FHWA Administrator Victor Mendez took on his position, he went to Congress and learned that it takes 13 years to deploy an innovation. Administrator Mendez then charged his team with coming up with initiatives to speed up the deployment of innovation. In the past, the main initiatives focused on workshops, which were more of a

27i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n c e n t i v e s a n d d i s i n c e n t i v e s push approach. Speeding up the innovation deployment process would mean creating more of a pull process. To lead state DOTs to ask questions, the team decided to create regional summits for decision makers to talk about the benefits of the technologies. The next step was to create an ongoing process in the states to consider what each state needs. AASHTO allocated $100,000 per state to form an innovation council at the state level to help create an innovation culture and make it more permanent by involving all parties. Ángel Aparicio commented that innovation is an enormous effort compared to the money received and asked whether there were hopes to increase the resources dedicated to innovation and reduce the gap between research and implementation. Brach replied that in U.S. highway research, almost everything is paid for by the Highway Trust Fund, which is in trouble, so there is zero hope of increased funding. However, increased funding must happen, so there is a long-term hope that the issues will be solved. John Inglish said that from the perspective of the U.S. states, holding peer exchanges and the lead state exchange have been of great value. These exchanges drive out fear of not wanting to speak freely in a wider forum. He also mentioned user liaisons, outreach to users, and working with TRB and AASHTO to coordinate with the Highway Safety Manual (2) as other methods for imple- menting research. Mason concluded the discussion by reiterating the value of involving non–transportation people in the discus- sions. In the area of incentives, he mentioned that the United States has a national program called the Small Business Innovative Research Program, which is a two-phased approach to innovation. In the first phase, awards generally do not exceed $150,000 for early R&D for ideas. Then, as the innovation passes through further phases, more funding is provided to help get the innova- tion to commercialization. As another example, the U.S. Department of Energy has performance contracts that provide a fee and overhead. Then the project is evaluated on its performance, and if the performance has improved, then additional funds are given. These are examples of incentives offered at the federal level, he said. references 1. Misra, A., A. Gooze, K. Watkins, M. Asad, and C. A. Le Dantec. Crowdsourcing and Its Application to Transporta- tion Data Collection and Management. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2414, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014, pp. 1–8. 2. Highway Safety Manual. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2010. http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default .aspx.