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.
10 Finding 2: The FAST Actâs greater emphasis on deployment and demonstration programs comes at the expense of R&D and risks reducing the generation and testing of new ideas and concepts. The reduction in R&T enhances the value of innovations from the private sector, but there are barriers to the use of proprietary products by public agencies. FHWA has revised its guidance on the use of proprietary products, and AASHTO is sharing information among the states about approved products, but federal law itself is limiting. Proprietary products, such as ultra-high performance concrete and fiber-reinforced polymer composites, promise greater strength thereby allowing for lighter bridge decks, and are being used in the highway sector. One barrier to wider use is caused by the nature of the materials used in highway construction. Roads and bridges are made of durable materials whose properties are fairly well known, some of which are expected to last for decades. Demonstrating the durability of new materials, many of which have higher initial costs than materials in common use, is technically challenging. Recommendation 1: The committee recommends that FHWA, AASHTO, and TRB meet to discuss options and strategies for reducing barriers to more widespread adoption of private-sector innovation. Finding 3: The new FAST Act demonstration programs address critical issues in highway transportation: (a) new funding mechanisms and (b) deployment of technologies to allow operational improvements that maximize throughput on limited physical capacity, which can reduce the need for capacity expansion. Many demonstration programs, which have funded specific projects, have been authorized in previous legislation, but inconsistent evaluation of these efforts has limited the opportunity for the highway community to learn from the projects. Recommendation 2: The RTCC recommends that FHWA ensure thorough evaluation of these demonstration programs so that federal, state, and local agencies and the public can learn from the experience. With respect to pilot demonstrations of new revenue-raising mechanisms, a key question for evaluation is whether these efforts shift public opinion and the perspectives of elected officials about their political acceptability. Finding 4: FHWA is engaged in valuable efforts to evaluate the outputs of its research and the efficacy of its deployment programs. The committee is pleased to learn that evaluation of innovation outputs and outcomes is a component of SHRP 2 deployment efforts. Capture of âlessons learnedâ so that they can be shared is particularly important. The committee is also pleased that FHWA is evaluating how the SHRP 2 deployment process worked. Such evaluation will help FHWA improve the delivery of innovation to its state and local partners. Evaluation of FHWAâs R&D program shows continued progress. Recommendation 3: The committee urges FHWA to complete as many case studies of its R&T program and evaluations of its deployment efforts as possible before reauthorization. The results can serve as success stories to demonstrate the value of investing in R&D.
