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.
7 websites. However, the diversity of sources can make it difficult for states to ascertain what other states have investigated and approved. Hillman argued that the necessity for private companies to market their products state by state, combined with the slow process for obtaining state approval, inhibits entrepreneurs from attracting private capital and thereby diminishes the opportunity for private companies to bring products to market in the highway sector. Discussion The legislation that FHWAâs regulation is based on was discussed. Hillman observed that the requirement for competition in products and materials was established decades ago to avoid graft and ensure that the public received the lowest price through competitive bidding. Many proprietary products have higher initial costs than conventional materials but promise longer service lives or lower maintenance requirements, or both, which means that life-cycle costs can be lower. However, evidence of the expected benefits is sometimes lacking because of the long life cycle of many highway structures (though in some cases accelerated tests can be used to calibrate predictive models). In answer to the question of why private entrepreneurs have not effectively lobbied Congress to change the law, Hillman observed that barriers to private-sector products in the highway area have been in place so long that private investment in developing highway products is small. Thus, companies lack the scale to try to encourage Congress to create a more favorable environment for private innovation. Others suggested that (a) the case has not been built to justify change and (b) a change in the law has not been put forward that would permit wider use of proprietary products while also ensuring best value to the public and avoidance of graft. RTCC members discussed options for encouraging greater reliance on the private sector for highway innovations and concluded that leadership of FHWA, AASHTO, and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) should meet to identify promising research and policy analysis. R&T DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION R&T Planning and Budgeting Presentation Jonathan Porter, Chief Scientist, Craig Thor, Senior Legislative and Budget Analyst, and Jack Jernigan, Director of R&T Program Development and Partnership Team, addressed the committee about R&T plans and budgeting. The Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) has been working to rebaseline the R&T budget, which was reduced by 25 percent under the FAST Act because of the new demonstration programs, described above, that were included in the research title of the act. TFHRC, rather than simply cutting each R&T program by 25 percent, is considering departmental priorities in deciding which activities to fund. FHWA is also exploring funding alternatives for projects that will be cut. Pooled-fund arrangements with state DOTs and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and collaboration with university transportation centers are among the alternatives being considered. Two new R&T planning efforts are included in the FAST Act. One is a department-wide 5-year strategic plan, which is under development and being coordinated through the Office of the Secretary. The other is a requirement that each USDOT modal administration develop an
8 annual research plan. The annual modal research plans focus on eliminating duplication on the research agenda and fostering cooperation and collaboration to address the topical areas while promoting R&T throughout states and local agencies. Development of these plans has required extensive interaction across modal administrations. Discussion Committee members reiterated concern that the R&T program has been reduced because of the need to fund new deployment efforts, but they were pleased to learn that FHWA is pursuing partnerships to sustain important research projects. The RTCC was also pleased to learn that the rebaselining efforts were not only about trimming funds but also about setting research priorities on the basis of agency goals. Members were intrigued by the effort within the department to ensure that the annual modal research plans are well coordinated. The FAST Act includes several provisions for improving the condition and performance of the national freight network and supporting investment in freight-related surface transportation projects. Freight is one of the main crosscutting topics within USDOT. The projected sharp increase in freight demand in coming decades makes this an area of major importance for USDOT and the nation. Committee members are interested in learning more about how USDOT is addressing freight and planning for the future and would like to continue to discuss the challenges of the multimodal freight network. They are also interested in learning how the department will be investing in research addressing truck size and weight issues. Future Challenges Presentations Jonathan Porter and David Kuehn, Exploratory Advanced Research (EAR) Program Director, discussed challenges for highway transportation and the areas of emphasis of the EAR Program. Porter drew from the Presidentâs innovation strategy, the FY 2016 budget, remarks from the Presidentâs science advisor, Secretary Foxxâs Beyond Traffic report, and the NCHRP Foresight series to outline a range of challenges. Kuehn briefly summarized ways in which the EAR Program is identifying and addressing emerging topics. Discussion The discussion addressed both the need to maintain the essential infrastructure of R&T for the long term in the face of budget cuts to R&T in the FAST Act and the need to begin articulating how FHWAâs R&T program can address some of the âgrand challengesâ facing the highway sector. RTCC members noted that the planning for a compelling R&T initiative that can motivate support for R&T in the reauthorization process should begin. R&T Evaluation Presentations TFHRC staff have been updating the committee on a regular basis about the ongoing evaluation of selected projects from each of FHWAâs program areas (infrastructure, safety, operations, planning and environment, and policy). At this RTCC meeting, Lee Biernbaum, Economist, and
9 David Epstein, Economist, both with the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, presented preliminary results of evaluations of FHWAâs traffic incident management (TIM) training and its promotion of geosynthetic reinforced soil abutments for short-span bridges. TIM training helps local agencies coordinate among first responders and detect and clear traffic incidents to minimize traffic congestion and increase safety. FHWA has supported more than 5,000 training sessions that reached 200,000 first responders around the country. The report on the first site evaluated, which was chosen because of data availability, shows small effects. TIM had been introduced gradually across the metropolitan area well before the FHWA- supported TIM training was completed, which appears to have affected the before-and-after comparison of program impact. The geosynthetic reinforced soilâintegrated bridge system (GRS-IBS) is an innovation to help reduce bridge construction time and cost by using soil reinforced with geosynthetic materials as abutments for short-span bridges. GRS-IBS projects can be built in weeks instead of months because of the ease of construction and the use of readily available materials and equipment. Reduced construction schedules translate into less risk exposure around work zones, thereby improving safety. The technology was deployed via the first three rounds of EDC, and preliminary results indicate that FHWAâs promotion of this technology produces benefits in the field. Because GRS-IBS bridges can be built by local agencies without state DOTs necessarily knowing about it, how widespread the application has been is difficult to determine. Discussion The committeeâs discussion addressed some of the confounding influences of evaluation, including the difficulty of obtaining data on overall impact and the challenges of parsing FHWAâs influence on awareness of innovations from diffusion of knowledge about them from other sources. The committee remains highly supportive of FHWAâs evaluations of its selected case studies. They can provide success stories that will be helpful in sustaining funding for R&T in a difficult budget environment. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1: The FAST Act makes a major commitment to the deployment of innovation, which is a critical component of the process. FHWA recognizes that developing and fostering innovation are central to its mission. The shortage of funding for maintaining and expanding the vast highway network requires that more be done with less. The RTCC is pleased to see how FHWA is (a) responding to the challenge in the FAST Act by reorganizing an innovation delivery office to emphasize deployment and (b) promoting a stronger culture of innovation across its program, division, and R&T offices and in the states. Preparing and training the state DOT workforce to understand and implement new technologies and practices are continuing challenges that deserve greater attention and resources. Ultimately, the workforce must be aware of innovations and be prepared to implement them before substantial improvements can be introduced into the field.
