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.

28 SESSION 3 Framing and Conducting Research to Ensure Implementation José Viegas, International Transport Forum, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France Stephen Andrle, Second Strategic Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., USA Horst Schulze, Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt), Bergisch Gladbach, Germany policy, daTa, and research: geTTing value from inTernaTional collaboraTion in research and policy analysis José Viegas José Viegas described the history of the International Transport Forum (ITF) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organization whose core goal is to help the ministers of transportation of its member countries make good policy decisions. ITF’s focus is on information, and it advises its members on the importance of good transportation policy. ITF has 54 member countries, of which 21 are not OECD members, even though ITF is housed within the OECD. The organization’s presidency rotates annually. The map of ITF member countries that Viegas showed illustrated good participation from countries across the northern hemisphere but some gaps in the southern hemisphere. Steps for Successful Research and Policy Analysis Projects ITF research is done cooperatively by member countries, and one of the organization’s most important activities is defining standard terminology to create reliable, comparable data across countries, so that, for example, the number four in one country means the same thing in other countries. The second step after the collection of reliable data is to select the research project’s format, topic, and partners. The third step is the dissemination of the results through various channels and engaged stakeholders. It all starts with good data, Viegas emphasized. He believes that ITF is the most reliable organization in the world for transportation data. As an academic, Viegas frequently uses ITF sources, such as its glossary for transportation statistics. Terminology is key, Viegas said, because direct translation of a name can mean a lot. ITF’s glossary has been translated into 30 languages. ITF also provides procedures for how to collect data because (in road safety, for example) different sources in the same country sometimes report different figures for how many people were seriously injured in road accidents in that country. ITF plays an important role in the harmonization of methods and definitions as well as in the development of new indicators and collection methods, both of which can advance the international statistics agenda Next, Viegas described some of the data collected at ITF, such as annual and quarterly trends per ton- kilometer and passenger-kilometer, and accidents. ITF also collects data on global trade and transportation. One interesting finding that shows the value of good data in creating a basis for international comparability is that the transportation of intermediate goods accounts for 50% of all trade movements. ITF is also doing important data collection work on investments in infrastructure and the valuation of assets and how they can be used. ITF has collected global data on carbon dioxide emissions and road safety data from 70 countries.

29f r a m i n g a n d c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h Collaborative Research Projects Collaborative research projects undertaken across national boundaries are at the core of ITF. Representatives of research institutes from ITF member countries select topics for which international collaboration provides value; these are referred to as “common value topics.” The countries propose topics, and the topics that receive the most votes are selected. Each research project lasts 18 to 24 months, and six to 12 countries are involved. Experts nominated by member countries form a working group, which is appointed for the duration of the 18- to 24-month project cycle and delivers a report with policy conclusions and recommendations at the end of the project. The research institutions are the orchestrators, Viegas said. A few of the best-selling reports from research projects are Cycling, Health and Safety (1); Workshop on Motorcycling Safety (2); and Infrastructure Adaptation to Climate Change and Severe Weather (forthcoming) (Figure 1). [ITF publications are available on the ITF website, http:// www.internationaltransportforum.org/.] ITF roundtables are another example of an ITF product. The ITF roundtable was created 61 years ago, and more than 150 have been held to date. About four roundtables now take place each year. Each roundtable features 25 to 30 invited experts who present their papers and engage in an in-depth discussion of a selected topic from the ITF program of work. The roundtables focus on diverse views and implications for policy. Viegas attended his first roundtable in 1984 and finds them to be a very exciting intellectual exercise. Each roundtable produces a report, and these reports, such as Long Run Trends in Car Use (3), Better Regulation of Public–Private Partnerships for Transport Infrastructure (4), and Improving the Practice of Transport Project Appraisal (5), are heavily downloaded. ITF Annual Summits ITF also holds an annual summit with ministers of member countries and high-level industry and academic participants—about 1,000 each year. The summits include a ministerial meeting and declaration from ministers; ministerial roundtables; and panel discussions with ministers, industry, researchers, and civil society. Other important features of the annual summit are bilateral meetings for captains of industry, networking, and an exhibition hall. The ministerial roundtables follow the Chatham House Rule, namely, that what is said in the roundtable is unattributed when discussed outside the meeting. This approach allows for candid discussions. Viegas attended one such roundtable last year with two ministers and a chief executive officer (CEO). The ministers and CEO sat together for the 2-hour duration of the roundtable. When the roundtable ended, they said that given another 2 hours, they likely would have come to agreement on a seemingly impossible issue, given the open discussion format of the roundtable. Each summit has a theme, such as funding transport or transport and innovation. The 2014 topic is transport for a changing world, that is, how transportation can play a role in making the world a better place. Significant work goes into feeding research inputs into each summit. There are summit expert sessions that deliver conclusions to feed policy debate and background reports that provide research evidence on the summit’s FIguRE 1 ITF collaborative research projects. (Source: ITF.) t Representatives of research institutes from ITF member countries select topics for which international collaboration provides added value (“common value topics”). t Experts nominated by member countries form a Working Group with a 2-year project cycle and deliver a report with policy conclusions and recommendations. t Recent examples: • Cycling, Health and Safety • Workshops on Motorcycling Safety • Infrastructure Adaptation to Climate Change and Severe Weather (forthcoming)

30 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 theme. Selected research center materials form the basis of summit debates. For example, on the topic of infrastructure, the UK Department of the Treasury provided input on valuing and managing infrastructure investments. Four examples of inputs for the 2013 funding transport summit were Funding Urban Public Transport: A Case Study Compendium (40 cases) (6), Spending on Transport Infrastructure 1995–2011: Trends, Policies, Data (7), Airports in the Aviation Value Chain: Financing, Returns, Risk and Investment (8), and The Potential of Private Institutional Investors for the Financing of Transport Infrastructure (9). Viegas has received much positive feedback on the summits, such as an investment bank saying the summit document on the topic was the most valuable one available and another quoting the value of the report on the seamless transport summit. Policy Review and Analysis ITF recently introduced an initiative at the other end of the policy chain—namely, policy review and analysis— in response to direct requests received from ministers. For example, ministers have called ITF when they have had a critical transportation policy issue they needed help with. ITF has helped ministers in South Korea, Mexico, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and France. A minister from Mexico, for instance, called ITF to review a proposed policy. ITF offered some changes, and the Mexican government responded positively because ITF was able to show that some of the assumptions going into the policy were not right. In South Korea, the senate approved transportation demand studies to which again ITF was able to propose some useful corrections. The South Korean minister commended ITF’s contribution. In these ways, ITF delivers value to its members. ITF has the capacity to quickly organize these reviews in a variety of formats (e.g., roundtable, report, panel review) by calling on its in-house resources as well as its worldwide network of experts. Countries pay for this service at marginal cost. Adding the Corporate Perspective ITF incorporates the government and academic perspectives but to date has been missing the corporate perspective, Viegas said. To gain the point of view of corporations on research and policy analysis, ITF added the Corporate Partnership Board (CPB) to its structure. Companies from across the world in all transportation modes and in key contributing sectors such as energy, finance, and information technology are invited. The kickoff meeting of the CPB took place on January 20, 2014, with 13 companies from the Americas, Asia, and Europe. ITF expects the membership of the CPB to grow to about 50 companies over the next 3 years. The CPB will add the corporate perspective to ITF transport policy analysis work, and this perspective will both lead to more solid findings and advice and provide additional funding for ITF. Two thematic project series will be proposed: “Emerging Issues in Transport Policy” and “Innovation Challenges in Transport Systems.” The first theme aims to identify emerging issues sooner; the second theme aims to identify barriers to innovation, such as a legal structure that forbids the innovation or a lack of financial incentives for implementing an innovation. ITF currently has four projects in these thematic areas. The projects are motivating initial funding and are helping to recruit young people to participate in the research. Viegas offered some concluding thoughts related to implementation. First, implementation is harder for ITF because the outcome is policy advice, not technology. However, as the summit roundtables have shown, having a 2-hour meeting dedicated to policy issues can yield much forward movement. In the upcoming spring meeting, countries will report on policy impacts and explain what they have done or what they have seriously considered in their policies to fund transportation. TransporTaTion research board’s cooperaTive research programs: considering implemenTaTion from The sTarT Stephen Andrle Stephen Andrle noted that the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) and the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) cooperative research programs (CRPs) have been considering implementation from the start. With regard to the two types of research being discussed at the symposium—high-level game-changing research versus more day-to-day research—Andrle placed SHRP 2 in the latter category, as this program’s research is all user driven and problem driven. There are also some research products that have risen in standing, such as the Highway Capacity Manual (10). People love to hate the manual, Andrle said, but they are aware of it and it is continuously updated. The manual has had more impact than was imagined five editions ago. One of the best practices learned from SHRP 2 and other TRB projects is that “You need to get the research right from the start,” Andrle said. The first meeting is critical, because that is when objectives are laid out. If committees ask the right questions, they will get the right responses back.

31f r a m i n g a n d c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h TRB Cooperative Research Programs Andrle described TRB’s numerous Cooperative Research Programs over the years. The oldest program was the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which was started in 1962. Research topics are chosen by the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Research. Fifty years ago, it would have been unusual to have an external committee picking research topics, but the funding is allocated by AASHTO and it chooses the research topics. The cooperating bodies in this program are the state departments of transportation. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) began 30 years later, in 1992. This program focuses on public transportation systems, and transit officials participate. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) was initiated in 2005, with airport operators as its main body. The National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) began in 2006 with funding from FHWA but has run out of funding and is winding down, as is the Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program (HMCRP), which was started in the same year. Finally, the National Cooperative Rail Research Program (NCRRP) was begun in 2012 with the participation of both freight and intercity passenger rail practitioners. Organizationally, all of TRB’s cooperative research programs are under one staff structure, though each has different characteristics. All are targeted to problem solving and are industry driven, Andrle said, adding the caveat that the term “industry” in this case refers to state departments of transportation rather than to for-profit corporations. Therefore, using the term “stakeholders” would perhaps be less misleading, but the point is that these entities are the owners or adopters who will apply the research, and they are the ones driving the research. Common Characteristics of the Cooperative Research Programs Next, Andrle described the characteristics that the CRPs have in common: they are industry driven, with a governing board and project panels; they focus on applied problem-solving research; and they use a competitive procurement process. Writing a request for proposal (RFP) is an art it itself, Andrle remarked. Industry-Driven Research Andrle next described the solution and selection processes that the CRPs use. The CRPs conduct annual solicitations for research problem statements from practitioners. The problem statements are reviewed by committees of other practitioners. Committees need to be composed of the right people so that they know the right questions to ask, Andrle added. For industry- driven research, the program governing boards consist of customers for the potential research. These boards are responsible for project selection and for researching the right topics. In addition, project panels are formed to oversee each research project selected. The panels consist of knowledgeable practitioners in the subject area that covers the relevant technical disciplines related to that project. The panel determines the research scope and products, selects researchers through competition, and monitors and reviews the research. Andrle discovered that, compared with SHRP 2, which organizes research top-down into four general topics, ownership in the CRP projects is cooperative. The participants know that their programs got picked, so they have ownership, Andrle said. The people who will use the research have ownership, and therefore they care. The best outreach people sat on the committees, which was another mechanism that worked, Andrle said. With SHRP 2, it was harder to tell what would get traction; some things were picked up but others were not. Applied Research Andrle showed a slide (Figure 2) of some of the products that have come out of the programs and that have good shelf life, such as the Highway Capacity Manual (10). The manual is not mandatory, he said, but it almost has the force of regulation in the United States and has been the primary source of analytical methods for new roads. Some products are turned over to AASHTO for implementation and dissemination. Initially, AASHTO committees give research problems to the CRP; the CRP carries out the research and then gives the research back to AASHTO for implementation and outreach, Andrle explained. Examples of research topics and products that came out of the transit program, TCRP, include • Fuels [Guidebook for Evaluating Fuel Choices for Post-2010 Transit Bus Procurements (11)], • Sustainability [Building a Sustainable Workforce in the Public Transportation Industry—A Systems Approach (12)], and • Public transit service [Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (13)]. These research products have staying power, but they can become out of date. Policies have changed for

32 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 light rail, for example, but researchers can go back to the funding source and say they need to do another manual. This is different from research funded by the states. Allocation of the projects is the same, but the difference is the ability to keep the procedures current under applied research. Andrle also showed examples of research products from the airport program, ACRP. Issues such as storm water are a problem at airports because they have so much pavement. The research projects address real problems, Andrle reiterated. Dissemination and Implementation As regards dissemination, TRB does not do implementation because the states are the ones that build the highways. Therefore, the states need to do the implementation, but TRB does try to set research projects up so that they are suitable for implementation. Each program has various dissemination mechanisms, including a TRB e-newsletter, a CRP website linked to the TRB website, various listservs, social media, conference displays, webinars, and workshops. There is also an ambassadors program in which people are paid to talk one-on-one with users (e.g., those at an airport) or, more broadly, through a speakers’ bureau. The dissemination activity is not advocacy, but simply dissemination. In terms of measuring implementation, TRB uses primarily soft methods such as project panel member surveys and industry surveys. It also measures impacts on practice and collects anecdotal information. For example, TRB’s bimonthly magazine, TR News, has a section in each issue titled “Research Pays Off” that features an article about where research has proven to be cost-effective. TRB staff track down and document the research’s impact. Finally, TRB maintains close ties with industry association committees. The TRB website contains information on all of its CRPs (NCHRP, TCRP, ACRP, NCFRP, HMCRP, and NCRRP) and has a search engine for locating information from as far back as 1988 on anticipated, active, and completed research projects. The website provides access to committees and a who’s who on topics, Andrle said. Finally, the site lists RFPs and has a registration form for automatic notification of calls for proposals. designing road safeTy research aimed aT increasing implemenTaTion possibiliTies and assuring acTual safeTy improvemenTs Horst Schulze Horst Schulze started with three central statements: • Transportation safety improvements can be assured through effective transportation safety management. • Effective transportation safety management must lean on evidence-based research. • Transportation safety management should be considered as an implementation of research results aiming to attain policy objectives. german Road Safety Program Schulze then described the lessons learned from the German road safety program, which began in 1970. At that time, there were about 20,000 deaths annually on German roads, but after the road safety program began, the number of deaths decreased. Schulze showed a chart of fatality numbers that indicated certain points at which FIguRE 2 Results of CRP programs. (Source: TRB.) FPO Applied Research: Guides and Specifications Software products Product enhancements New or improved models/tools Improved operations and services Testing/evaluation techniques

33f r a m i n g a n d c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h big decreases in fatalities took place; those decreases were always tied to the implementation of a new safety measure. The first big decrease took place with the introduction of a blood alcohol limit of .08 for drivers and the implementation of speed limits on rural roads. Schulze said that the mandate for improved road safety obliged research to answer the right questions and implement the right safety measures to effect decreases in fatalities. The annual death rate is now just 3,400. The latest decreases occurred after the introduction of the two most recent measures: a lower blood alcohol limit of .05 and accompanied driving, meaning that until novice drivers reach a certain age, they (particularly youths) are only allowed to drive when they are accompanied by an experienced driver. Schulze then moved from the detailed level to the more abstract, discussing how the road safety man- agement research program was created and run. The program was designed by politicians, he said, but researchers also helped to define the targets. The research gets implemented by different actors, and after implementation there is another instrument involved: that of control and quality assurance. In the 10-year plan, there are reports every 2 years about how the program is working. If deviations are found, cor- rections can be made. The review mechanism helps to ensure quality and that the results are on target. European Road Safety Program In addition to the German Road Safety Research pro- gram, there is also a Europe-wide road safety manage- ment program that also has research related to policy goals. The central goal for the European program is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. However, there is a question as to how good results will be implemented and who will control the quality assurance, because unlike the German program, the European program does not have those mechanisms in place (compare Figures 3 and 4). Schulze next presented three general tasks that are needed to improve transportation safety in Europe: 1. Improve coordination of policy objectives and research, so that policy aims are properly translated to transportation safety research. 2. Establish a constant evaluation (controlling) process to evaluate safety measures and to communicate the evaluation outcome to policy and research. 3. Close the gap between research and implementation. Specifically, Schulze thought that research should be more closely involved not only in developing but in conducting implementation actions and evaluating the effects of road safety regulations. There is a continued and growing role for research that contributes more to transportation safety improvements, Schulze said, because even though the number of road fatalities in the European Union has decreased considerably, the reduction is below the targeted goals. Indeed, in the past few years, the reduction in road fatalities has been minimal, and injuries resulting from road accidents have barely decreased. In short, deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting from road crashes are still unacceptably high, and FIguRE 3 Road safety management in germany. [Source: Forum of European Road Safety Research Institutes (FERSI).] Policy Research Implementation Evaluation/ Controlling BASt Road Safety Research Program National Federal Government Road Safety Program • Actions/measures • Legal recommendations ( e.g., limits) Accident prevention report

34 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 there is a growing need to merge policy, research, implementation, and control. Forum of European Road Safety Research Institutes The Forum of European Road Safety Research Institutes (FERSI) was established as a network of research institutions that have a mandate from their governments to implement road safety research and to provide policy advice about road safety. Although FERSI had been an informal network since 1991, it became a nonprofit association registered in Brussels in 2012. To fulfill their mandates, FERSI members have to be proactive and to be thinking about safety problems 4 to 5 years ahead, because that is how long it takes to do research and translate the research into policy measures and recommendations. FERSI sees nine key priorities and challenges for road safety research for the next decade: 1. Aging of society. More of the population is older than 60 years of age, and as drivers age, they develop impairments that reduce their driving performance. Society must do all it can to keep the elderly mobile but must also find ways to do this safely and to provide alternative modes when the elderly are no longer able to drive safely, Schulze said. The aging of society also implies the need to develop reliable diagnostic tools to assess whether an elderly person is still capable of driving safely. In addition, perhaps training programs could be developed to improve mobility or safe driving behavior among the elderly. 2. Vulnerable road users. People are moving out of the countryside and into cities, where there are more jobs and opportunities for education. In a city, however, a car is a burden because of limited parking and expense. Therefore, more people become pedestrians or cyclists, who are more vulnerable road users. Research can help find answers to questions such as what safety issues will arise with an increase in electric bikes, or how to overcome the conflict between reducing road injuries and promoting the health benefits of walking and cycling. 3. Cultural diversity. The safety measures that work in the Netherlands may not work in Serbia because of cultural factors. In addition, new EU member states have much higher numbers of road fatalities. Research is needed to establish effective data collection for culture-specific research as well as to identify which dimensions of road safety research are influenced by cultural factors. 4. Vehicle automation and intelligent transportation systems. As vehicle automation increases, humans will still be in cars and interacting with the increasing automation. Schulze posed the following questions: How can a driver’s attention be ensured in the case of continuous automation? What are the safe ways to transition from automated to driver-only modes? Will automated safety features lead to more careless driving and thereby ultimately reduce road safety (the risk homeostasis effect)? If so, which types of driver- monitoring technologies are needed? 5. Burden of injuries. The paradigm of road safety has expanded beyond reducing fatalities to reducing injuries as well. In this area, unanswered questions include the following: Which factors have caused the slower decrease FIguRE 4 Road safety management in Europe. (Source: FERSI.) Policy Research Implementation Evaluation/ Controlling HORIZON 2020, national programs Road Safety Action Plan Ex- ante and ex-post project evaluation ? ?? ?

35f r a m i n g a n d c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h in accidents with injuries as compared with accidents with fatalities? How can underreporting of slight and serious injuries be assessed? What relationships exist between road accident types, road user behavior, vehicle types, and injury types? 6. Safe road design. This research priority could answer questions such as – How efficiently can safety assessments of the existing road and infrastructure be conducted? and – Which education and training approaches are needed to implement all tools of the Infrastructure Safety Directive (e.g., road safety impact assessments, road safety audits, road safety inspections)? 7. Education and training of road users. Research could answer the question of what specific education and training are needed for different road users and groups, as well as what the most cost-effective training (or retraining) methods are (e.g., e-learning or simulations). 8. Behavioral change. This research priority relates to the philosophy that impaired drivers should be rehabilitated. The questions that arise are whether an improved theoretical basis is needed to initiate behavioral change and how key human factors such as attitudes and expectations can be adapted to improve safety in a sustainable way. 9. Road safety management. This priority examines what research topics are needed to improve road safety management and which components of the research programs should be conducted on an international level. discussion Francesca La Torre framed seven objectives for the session’s discussion: 1. Identify the gaps between research and implementation. 2. Identify the critical elements in current research approaches and funding policies that limit the implementation of research results. 3. Identify successful funding programs (e.g., SHRP 2). 4. Understand whether there are best practices that can be useful to enhance technology transfer, including transfer across continents. 5. Identify issues in the transferability of research results worldwide, that is, how knowledge can be exchanged systematically on a worldwide scale to avoid duplication. 6. Determine how to get end users’ insights on how the outputs of the research could be improved to allow for easier implementation. End users are the final implementers, she said, so how can researchers incorporate their inputs into the research products they deliver so that those research products are what the end users wanted? SHRP 2 involved the implementers, but the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 is not driven by the needs of implementers. There might be a process whereby the road authorities or contractors could say what they want some of the research outcomes to be. 7. Help researchers find a way to enhance the willingness of industry to be aware of the value of new solutions. La Torre encouraged researchers to make the extra effort to get user buy-in, sell the new solution, and evaluate the effectiveness of new solutions. An end user will not buy a solution just because the seller says it works; the message must be credible. Researchers can add credibility to a solution by evaluating its effectiveness. Cristina Marolda wanted to clarify the confusion of “end user” as a term. The term is confusing because who the end user is changes over time along the chain of innovation. She suggested using the term “buyer of the result” to reflect the end user who funds the innovation. Research has to provide value to the buyer, and the buyer has to be convinced of that value. The value will change on the basis of who the buyer is. For example, to sell to industry, researchers need to make a business case. To sell to public authorities, researchers need to make a policy case that the research will help achieve policy targets. When you have a clear policy authority, you also have peer investment, she said. If you have that investment, you have a way to apply the result. Marolda added that the funder breakout group mentioned the need to have a vision and a plan for what the researchers want and need. This can be achieved through a dialogue between the policy makers and the researchers, and the dialogue must take place both in the global context and also regionally, because one solution does not fit all. Northern European countries that have ice 8 months of the year have different issues than southern countries that have to deal with heat. Despite regional differences, the countries do share common goals, such as the desire for efficient infrastructure at a lower cost. When there is agreement on a common goal, countries can jointly fund the research effort and pool their money. “If you have political willingness to reach a goal, you can reach the policy targets,” Marolda said. “In the European Commission, we are trying to fit all the topics of our research program to match policy drivers. We are committed to reach policy objectives and adapt the research to engage the right critical stakeholders.” John Munro suggested using the term “adopter” rather than “buyer,” because some users adopt, but they don’t necessarily buy. Marolda commented that the term itself is less important than the concept of “buy-in,” that is, investing so that there is buy-in.

36 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 Livia Pardi supported Marolda’s comment on the importance of buyers, because going from research to implementation requires a greater investment of money in the demonstration phase of the project. That means strong commitment from industry in the results. The demonstration period is important to show the performance-based criteria. The demonstration period also offers the opportunity to show the advantages of the solution. george giannopoulos remarked on two points he heard. First, how can implementation be incorporated into the research work in a practical way? Being a researcher himself, he would like to hear an example of how that is done. He speculated that there are three types of actions. The first possible action is selecting the right partners from the start. The partners can include the transportation researchers as well as policy makers. Currently, policy makers only supervise the research and are not involved as partners. Second, the buyers of the research are industry partners, but more of them may need to be involved, perhaps through consortia with research partners. Third, there is a need for an evaluation process focused on implementation issues; there is a technical review and a financial review, but no review focused on implementation. There should be an implementation review, Giannopoulos suggested. Giannopoulos’ second point related to incentives. He suggested first that during the implementation review phase, an incentive could be offered, namely, tying the extension of the contract to implementation or funding issues such as intellectual property rights or commercialization. Bonuses could be given in the medium term and long term if implementation takes place. He noted that Trentacoste mentioned that the U.S. Department of Energy gives bonuses. Second, as Brach said, implementation must take account of the social and economic context in which the innovation will be introduced. ITF could do this given its worldwide membership. Finally, he posited that there was a need to conduct research on implementation issues, that is, to study how to implement research in a worldwide context as a way to enhance industry’s willingness to implement the research. Research on this topic is needed, he said, because the process of implementation and uptake is so complex. urban Karlström said that for research to be imple- mented, researchers and implementers have to work closely together so that researchers do not have to “sell” their solutions. Rather, they present solutions to real problems; everyone then agrees on the problems to be solved. That is how to bring the problem owners and researchers closer together. Sweden has been doing this intensively, he said. When Sweden evaluated its trans- portation R&D, it realized that it was not getting enough out of its research money, both public and private. The conclusion was to bring both the public and private sectors together to identify common problems and see what research was needed or what regulations needed to be changed and to have a systematic approach to the implementation process. Sweden brought together 40 key organizations to participate, including research institutes, companies, and public agencies. The organiza- tions decided what innovation was needed and wrote a common strategy on how to address the problems faced. They now have some strategies, and the different actors can see the results. The whole system is made more effec- tive by a common but broad strategy that is not just orga- nized by mode and that brings in people from outside the transportation sector. For example, car companies and shipping companies helped to identify alternative fuels. Similarly, telecommunications companies were included in traffic management issues. When different agencies work together, they can get more out of the research. La Torre noted that Sweden’s approach was user driven, in that the groups established the needs. She then posed the following two questions: What if an innovation is developed that is not part of the identified plan? How do you incorporate that blue-sky thinking? “You have to shout,” as Terry Hill had said, to get attention. Similarly, La Torre said, in Italy she has to shout to get the attention of road administrators. Luckily, she is a professor in Italy that people listen to, but otherwise innovators have to prove with numbers to say, “If you do X, you will save Y lives,” and that takes research. Pam Hutton emphasized that she is not a researcher, but an implementer. She agreed with Karlström that research needs to solve a real problem. SHRP 2 started that way: not as solutions looking for a problem but as solutions to real, existing problems. Second, the SHRP 2 research started with a primer on how the research would be implemented. It was a “how-to” manual that was written when the research began and was used daily. Finally, SHRP 2 at the outset had an implementation budget to kick-start the implementation. When Congress passed legislation that required states to contribute money to implement the research, the states gained ownership. They became buyers. There was a pool of money, and SHRP 2 provided financial incentives that were significant in engaging the states and getting them to be aware of the tools and to care because they were buying them. The implementation budget had a specific line item for communication and training so that the messages communicated would be consistent and so that overall awareness would grow. At the local level, the peer exchanges were funded by this communication line item. SHRP 2 was a large program—$232 million over 9 years—and the implementation budget was another $160 million. The recommended amount for implementation is

37f r a m i n g a n d c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h to be four times the research amount, so SHRP 2 got only one-eighth of the recommended amount; nonetheless, implementation was part of the budget. Patrick Malléjacq referred back to the earlier question on commissioning research. France participated in a Euro- pean research project in which the administration that was to commission the research did not have knowledge of the problem; the administration simply left it to the researchers to define the problem on their behalf. That is, there was a loop in which the buyer asked the supplier, “you do it on our behalf.” There are also different types of users. “Why is there so much research on cancer?” Malléjacq posed. Because people fear dying of it. People figure they can deal with potholes, so fixing them is not as pressing, he said. Malléjacq suggested that it is impor- tant to engage with end users such as drivers, neighbors, and industry—the whole range of owners—on the dem- onstration of the research. Stephen Andrle offered the reflection that more people die of potholes than die of the medical issues that are being funded, so there may be a societal disconnect. He referred back to a point that Horst Schulze raised, namely, framing the research in a way that ensures implementation. Joris Al, he noted, brought up the point that conflicting policy is a barrier to implementation. There may be too many conflicting policies. For example, solving a noise problem may conflict with a safety requirement, or dealing with flooding can conflict with a water quality policy. There are so many policy bodies that they may conflict. Who should be responsible for identifying the policy conflicts? Harold Paul reflected back to Stephen Andrle’s statement in his presentation that if one wants implementation of the research, one needs to consider implementation from the start. TRB does that, Paul said, by considering implementation of the products that will come out of the research and how those research products will be used. Government, academics, and industry are trying to solve the same problems, so involving them from the start is useful. Paul said that he is a researcher, but he is also a funder and an implementer because, in his state, he is charged with putting his research into practice. He has reorga- nized his office because researchers do not know how to implement, he said. He reorganized and changed people’s job descriptions so that some of them became account- able for implementation, and their jobs now have perfor- mance measures for putting research into practice. Paul said that if one wants to track implementation, one must put that intention in the problem statement at the start. It is too hard to try to put it in after the fact, because one needs to identify the data that have to be collected. Finally, on the point of selling the solution, Paul said that researchers do not need to sell the solu- tion to the users if the users came up with the problem. However, researchers may have to sell the legislature on it if the legislature funds the research. In his case, the legislature funds Paul’s research and his whole depart- ment. Therefore, Paul has to think about the value of the research, and that is the marketing piece—to express the value of what has been created. La Torre noted that the last point may be a fundamental difference between EU member countries and the United States, in that much research in the European Union is not funded by end users such as AASHTO, who would require that the value of the research be established in the research proposal. In the Horizon 2020 project, the funding is not done by end users. “If you do only research that is funded by end users, you will not get blue-sky thinking,” she said. “But if you do blue-sky thinking, how will you get the research implemented?” Beverly Scott mentioned that she is a funder as well as an implementer and has worked in organizations large and small. The back end differs, she said, as does people’s and organizations’ capacity. How research gets implemented depends on the back end, which is diversified. Scott manages a $5 billion capital program, but the R&D portion is very small. The people are very “get-it-done” oriented, she said, and she had to fight to get the R&D budget. Barbara Harder has been looking at bringing accelerators from other domains into the transportation domain, and she has seen boundary-spanning activities dealing with the gap between researchers and end users. Harold Paul has taken staff to span the gap from research to the user, she noted. SHRP 2 has also done that by taking people who are great at connecting the dots. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has “partnership intermediary agreements,” and the agency hires people who are experts at gap-spanning and getting the product used. The U.S. Department of Defense uses transition teams. Companies such as Dell and IBM use concepts such as “entrepreneur in residence” that look at the research being done internally with an eye toward the question “How could a business be built from the research being done?” In short, other domains have a role for people who know how to bridge the gap, and that concept is transferable to transportation. Joris Al added another actor to the mix. Besides boundary- spanners who get research implemented, there is a need for universities to teach the new research concepts that have been identified. For example, in two cases he studied [(a) Sustainable and Advanced Materials for Road Infrastructure and (b) Assessment and Rehabilitation of Central European Highway Structures], he asked whether engineering concepts such as high-performance fiber had

38 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 been implemented in Eastern Europe. That had been the ultimate goal of those programs—to transfer that knowledge to Eastern European countries. However, the cases stopped at proof of concept, and the concept did not get taken up in Eastern Europe. The lack of uptake was not due to a lack of funds but because the engineers did not know about the solution. It was not taught in the universities. Therefore, Al suggested that universities need to play a role in disseminating innovation. The time lag between research results and when that new knowledge gets taught in the curricula is too long. Ángel Aparicio pointed out that the transportation sector may perhaps be unwilling to change, or unable to, because it is a closed sector that does not talk as much to society as other more innovative sectors do. He urged that more collaborative thinking take place. La Torre agreed that much has been said about bringing together different perspectives but that the transportation sector is not there yet in achieving it. Astrid Linder shared an example of how safety research was successfully implemented. In her case, two competing companies were working on the same research project. Having the dynamic of the two competing companies ensured that they would use what had been created in the research. Terry Hill said that in the business arena, a key principle is to have the shortest line possible from research to market. Ten years ago, Hill closed his company’s research department because it was losing touch with business. In its stead, he put R&D into each business line. That way, each business unit, such as high-rises, would be responsible for its own innovation. Hill appointed a director of research to coordinate the research projects, but the point was to put research into the business and make them hungry for the research, so that the end users demanded the research and the distance to implementation would thereby be as short as possible. Pardi said that in her case, she had to document the economic impact of the research 2 years after her research project ended or give back the funding. This approach obliges the researcher to put the results of the research into practice. Such an approach may be a good one to emulate, she suggested. José Viegas echoed what another participant had said: that “instead of TRB praising the results of TRB research, someone else should be praising it.” He experienced a similar problem when he went to a mayor to discuss implementing his research, and the mayor asked, “Where else has this been done before?” Viegas replied that it had not been done elsewhere because it was a new idea. “Then how can I be sure it will work?” the mayor asked. “I have the research to prove that it will work,” Viegas replied, but that proof was not enough for the mayor. Viegas noted that he was a Portuguese researcher and was going to a Portuguese mayor, but he still could not get his research implemented. “Should I go to the mayor of Paris?” he posed. But the Portuguese mayor persisted, “It’s hard for me to be the first one to do it.” Following on the comment that universities should teach innovative research concepts, Viegas noted that professors can choose what they teach. His own classes are full because he teaches new concepts, but other colleagues do not; they may not even be reading the latest journals that describe the new research, and that is their choice. So if a professor chooses not to teach new research or concepts, there is no way to force him or her to do so. La Torre added that many professors are simply professors, not designers. That is, they have never worked in the field they teach. If she could, she would forbid this. She believes that professors need to be involved in the R&D process and not just teach material that they have never practiced. Perhaps in the future, even if it is not possible to force professors to teach a particular idea, they could be forced to remain up-to- date and informed. Andrle followed up on Linder’s comment of the two competing companies being involved in the research. Andrle has done partnership procurements that stipulate that a public agency must be a partner to use the research. Thus, the research proposal includes the public agency, a university, and a consulting firm that together form a mini test bed that is then communicated to the transportation commission. Metrics are also important, because metrics such as travel time reliability add value to the research. The metrics used must be valid. Involving insiders in pilots provides feedback on those who are the first to implement the research idea, he said. A participant who had worked at the World Bank added that anyone who does research without under- standing the benefits and costs is missing a major point. He said that when he was chair of a TRB committee that looked at federal R&D, the committee would ask, “Why are you doing this research? Have you subjected it to a priority analysis?” The research must say who would buy it or what it will produce so that it can be compared with other research that could be done. He pointed out that more money is spent to prevent an aviation-related death than to prevent a highway death. Why? The key factor in highway deaths is driver behavior, the most important of which is alcohol use, so why not address that problem? Economic priorities should be addressed. A research project should be undertaken not because that particu- lar research is cool, but because it can demonstrate real benefits. There is no business case for high-speed rail,

39f r a m i n g a n d c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h but there is an economic case for high-speed rail, and that is the point. Businesses can evaluate research invest- ments, but public research needs economics to prioritize research choices. La Torre echoed that in the researchers’ breakout group, many said that every research proposal should include a cost–benefit analysis. Angela Miller added that in addition to the economic perspective, there should be a time perspective. She mentioned that in other industries the pace of innovation is faster, and that if the transportation industry cannot keep pace with change, then other industries will encroach into the industry without it having the context or nimbleness to respond. She mentioned the cybersecurity threat, now that cybervandals can make money from their nefarious actions and can jeopardize electronic vehicle control systems. The pace of research needs to be agile to stay ahead of such threats, she said. references 1. Cycling, Health and Safety. Research Report. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Transport Forum, Paris, 2013. 2. Workshop on Motorcycling Safety. Final Report. ITF/ OECD/JTRC/TS6(2008)1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Transport Forum, Paris, 2008. 3. Long-Run Trends in Car Use. ITF Round Tables No. 152. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Transport Forum, Paris, 2013. 4. Better Regulation of Public–Private Partnerships for Transport Infrastructure. ITF Round Tables No. 151. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Transport Forum, Paris, 2013. 5. Improving the Practice of Transport Project Appraisal. ITF Round Tables No. 149. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Transport Forum, Paris, 2011. 6. Funding Urban Public Transport: A Case Study Compen- dium. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel- opment, International Transport Forum, Paris, 2013. 7. Spending on Transport Infrastructure 1995–2011: Trends, Policies, Data. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Transport Forum, Paris, 2013. 8. Tretheway, M., and K. Markhvida. Airports in the Avia- tion Value Chain: Financing, Returns, Risk and Invest- ment. Discussion Paper No. 2013-15. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Transport Forum, Paris, 2013. 9. Sharma, R. The Potential of Private Institutional Investors for the Financing of Transport Infrastructure. Discussion Paper No. 2013-14. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Transport Forum, Paris, 2013. 10. Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010. 11 . TCRP Report 146: Guidebook for Evaluating Fuel Choices for Post-2010 Transit Bus Procurements. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011. 12. Cronin, C. B., A. Alexander, B. Cronin, C. Riches, J. Stern, R. Lazaro, and V. Lazaro. TCRP Report 162: Building a Sustainable Workforce in the Public Transportation Industry—A Systems Approach. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013. 13. TCRP Report 165: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd ed. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013.