[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION R&D
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
and
MARCH 31, 2009
----------
Serial No. 111-2
and
Serial No. 111-16
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
AN OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION R&D
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
and
MARCH 31, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-2
and
Serial No. 111-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-544 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
HON. DAVID WU, Oregon, Chair
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
PAUL D. TONKO, New York W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
MIKE QUEAR Subcommittee Staff Director
MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Democratic Professional Staff Member
TRAVIS HITE Democratic Professional Staff Member
TIND SHEPPER RYEN Republican Professional Staff Member
PIPER LARGENT Republican Professional Staff Member
VICTORIA JOHNSTON Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
An Overview of Transportation R&D: Priorities for Reauthorization
February 12, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative David Wu, Chair, Subcommittee on
Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Adrian Smith, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 11
Witnesses:
The Honorable Paul R. Brubaker, Former Administrator, Research
and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Biography.................................................... 16
Dr. Elizabeth Deakin, Professor of City and Regional Planning;
Director, University of California Transportation Center,
University of California, Berkeley
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Biography.................................................... 23
Mr. Amadeo Saenz, Jr., Executive Director, Texas Department of
Transportation
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 26
Biography.................................................... 30
Mr. Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Executive Director, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32
Biography.................................................... 43
Mr. David J. Wise, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 45
Biography.................................................... 50
Discussion....................................................... 50
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Paul R. Brubaker, Former Administrator, Research
and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 82
Dr. Elizabeth Deakin, Professor of City and Regional Planning;
Director, University of California Transportation Center,
University of California, Berkeley............................. 85
Mr. Amadeo Saenz, Jr., Executive Director, Texas Department of
Transportation................................................. 91
Mr. Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Executive Director, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies....................... 95
Mr. David J. Wise, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office.................. 113
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Statement of Lawrence H. Orcutt, Chief, Division of Research and
Innovation, California Department of Transportation............ 116
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers............. 132
C O N T E N T S
The Role of Research in Addressing Climate in Transportation
Infrastructure
March 31, 2009
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 136
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative David Wu, Chair, Subcommittee on
Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 139
Written Statement............................................ 139
Statement by Representative Adrian Smith, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 140
Written Statement............................................ 141
Witnesses:
Mr. David T. Matsuda, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation
Oral Statement............................................... 143
Written Statement............................................ 144
Biography.................................................... 150
Ms. Catherine Ciarlo, Transportation Director, Office of Mayor
Sam Adams, City of Portland, Oregon
Oral Statement............................................... 150
Written Statement............................................ 152
Biography.................................................... 155
Dr. Laurence R. Rilett, Keith W. Klaasmeyer Chair in Engineering
and Technology; Director, Mid-America Transportation Center;
Director, Nebraska Transportation Center, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln
Oral Statement............................................... 156
Written Statement............................................ 157
Biography.................................................... 161
Mr. Steven Winkelman, Director of Transportation and Adaptation
Programs, Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP)
Oral Statement............................................... 162
Written Statement............................................ 164
Biography.................................................... 178
Mr. Mike Acott, President, National Pavement Association
Oral Statement............................................... 179
Written Statement............................................ 181
Biography.................................................... 188
Discussion....................................................... 188
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. David T. Matsuda, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation....... 206
Ms. Catherine Ciarlo, Transportation Director, Office of Mayor
Sam Adams, City of Portland, Oregon............................ 214
Dr. Laurence R. Rilett, Keith W. Klaasmeyer Chair in Engineering
and Technology; Director, Mid-America Transportation Center;
Director, Nebraska Transportation Center, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln............................................... 218
Mr. Steven Winkelman, Director of Transportation and Adaptation
Programs, Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP)................... 223
Mr. Mike Acott, President, National Pavement Association......... 229
AN OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION R&D: PRIORITIES FOR REAUTHORIZATION
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David Wu
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
An Overview of
Transportation R&D:
Priorities for Reauthorization
thursday, february 12, 2009
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
I. Purpose
On Thursday, February 12, 2009, the Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation will convene a hearing to review the research, development,
and deployment activities of the Department of Transportation. The
hearing will focus on issues related to the funding, planning, and
execution of current research initiatives and how these efforts fulfill
the strategic goals of both federal and State Departments of
Transportation, metropolitan transportation organizations, and
industry. With the expiration of SAFETEA-LU in FY 2009, this hearing
will also examine possible ways to improve the current federal
transportation effort.
II. Witnesses
The Honorable Paul Brubaker is a former Administrator of the Research
and Innovative Technology Administration of the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Dr. Elizabeth Deakin is the Director of the University of California
Transportation Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
Mr. Robert E. Skinner, Jr. is the Executive Director of the
Transportation Research Board.
Mr. David Wise is the Acting Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues
at the Government Accountability Office.
Mr. Amadeo Saenz, Jr. is the Executive Director of Texas Department of
Transportation.
III. Overview
Signed in 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient,
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-
59) authorized a total of $2.227 billion through FY 2009 for research
and related programs under Title V of the bill. This Title authorizes
surface transportation research by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), training and education programs, the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, the University Transportation Centers (UTCs), and
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Research. The Science and
Technology Committee's jurisdiction over surface transportation
research and development is based on House rules which grant the
Committee jurisdiction over, ``Scientific research, development, and
demonstration, and projects therefore'' and legislative precedent.
Jurisdiction over these programs is shared with the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. The Science and Technology Committee has a
long referral history regarding surface transportation research and
development (R&D) bills, including H.R. 860 in the 105th Congress and
H.R. 242, and H.R. 243 in the 109th Congress. Elements of each of these
bills were incorporated in the highway reauthorization bills for the
respective Congresses.
IV. Issues and Concerns
Planning, Coordination, and Evaluation of Research, Development, and
Technology (RD&T)
Despite the creation of a specific RD&T coordinating agency within
Department of Transportation (DOT) by the Mineta Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-
426), and requirements in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) (P.L. 105-178) and SAFETEA-LU that DOT evaluate and
coordinate its research programs, efforts in this regard continue to
fall short. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
evaluated the coordination and review efforts by the Research and
Special Programs Administration (RSPA).\1\ RSPA had been created by the
Secretary of Transportation to coordinate and review RD&T activity
across the modal agencies. It was dissolved when the Mineta Act created
the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) to fulfill
largely the same functions. In the 2003 report, GAO found that efforts
to locate duplicative programs and opportunities for cross-
collaboration between the modal agencies were hampered by a lack of
information on the RD&T activities being pursued across the modal
agencies. GAO also found that DOT did not have a systematic method for
measuring the results of federal transportation research activities, or
a method to show how their research impacted the performance of surface
transportation in the U.S. RSPA cited a lack of resources to perform
these types of evaluations, and they also stated that each modal agency
undertook its own evaluation of its research programs. GAO recommended
that RSPA define metrics to evaluate the outcomes of its DOT-wide RD&T
coordination efforts. In 2006, GAO did a follow-up evaluation of RD&T
coordination and evaluation.\2\ They again offered similar
recommendations, noting the continuing lack of common performance
measures for DOT RD&T activities. However, at the time of that
evaluation, RITA had just recently been established. GAO commended the
initiative in RITA's FY 2007 budget request to devote $2.5 million to
RD&T coordinating activities (an increase of nearly $2 million over the
$536,000 spent by RSPA in FY06 on coordination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO-03-500, Transportation Research: Actions Needed to Improve
Coordination and Evaluation of Research.
\2\ GAO-06-917, Transportation Research: Opportunities for
Improving the Oversight of DOT's Research Programs and User
Satisfaction with Transportation Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November of 2006, RITA submitted the Transportation Research,
Development and Technology Strategic Plan for 2006-2010 to Congress.
The Transportation Research Board (TRB), of the National Research
Council, evaluated this plan and noted, ``The strategic RD&T plan for
2006-2010 is a reasonable first effort. It offers useful descriptions
of the many RD&T programs within the Department. At the same time, it
is more a compendium of individual RD&T activities than a strategic
plan that articulates department wide priorities and justifications for
RD&T programs and budgets.'' \3\ According to TRB, the plan lacked
stakeholder input and also failed to identify how stakeholder input
would be sought for strategic planning in research topic areas. It
further failed to articulate the role and value of DOT's RD&T
activities; describe the process used for selecting research topics to
ensure their relevance, quality, or performance; describe the expected
outcomes from RD&T; and describe the process for monitoring
performance. In TRB's view, the plan, at a minimum should have
explained the extent to which quantifiable goals, timetables, and
performance measures would be part of RD&T programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ RITA, Transportation Research, Development and Technology
Strategic Plan: 2006-2010, Nov. 2006, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The major surface transportation RD&T program of the FHWA has
received similar criticisms regarding coordination and evaluation as
DOT's overall RD&T program. The program is highly decentralized, with
research activities taking place in five out of the thirteen offices
within the agency. In 2002, GAO reviewed FHWA's R&D approach and urged
that the agency ``develop a systematic process for evaluating
significant ongoing and completed research that incorporates peer-
review or other best practices in use at Federal agencies that conduct
research.'' \4\ FHWA subsequently developed its Corporate Master Plan
for Research and Deployment of Technology and Innovation, released in
2003. This document contains many overarching principles, such as
measuring the performance of RD&T activities, but does not provide
specific mechanisms through which FHWA will implement all of them. It
is also unclear from FHWA's RD&T Performance Plan for 2006/2007 if the
many research projects listed have been evaluated for their use by the
transportation community. Without such analysis, the information
portrayed in these documents establishes outputs, but does not offer
any outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ GAO-02-573, Highway Research: Systematic Selection and
Evaluation Processes Needed for Research Program, pg. 19.
Tech-Transfer
There is general agreement that the transfer of technology and new
ideas from the R&D stage to deployment and adoption is slow. In
testimony before this committee in September of 2007, FHWA identified
some of the contributing factors that slow the State and local adoption
of new transportation technology, including insufficient information on
the benefits versus the costs of new technologies; lack of confidence
in new technologies or a lack of performance data; and a lack of
incentive mechanisms to encourage the deployment of new technology.\5\
TRB Special Report 295, The Federal Investment in Highway Research,
2006-2009: Strengths and Weaknesses, notes the important role FHWA
plays in educating State DOTs about new technologies and encouraging
their adoption, noting such efforts as FHWA's activities to identify,
market, and track the deployment of market-ready technologies and
incorporate a strategic plan for the deployment of pavement research
activities. However, the funding for technology transfer activities at
FHWA has suffered in recent years, falling from $100 million to $40
million after the passage of TEA-21. The report further notes, ``The
missing element among all of FHWA's deployment activities appears to be
the resources within the agency with explicit expertise in technology
transfer and deployment that could provide guidance to the various
efforts agency wide [sic].'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ House Science and Technology Committee, Bridge Safety: Next
Steps to Protect the Nation's Critical Infrastructure, September 19,
2007.
\6\ TRB Special Report 295, page 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Intelligent Transportation Systems program is a well studied
example of transfer and deployment of R&D efforts. In 2005, GAO
identified broad issues with DOT's deployment goals for traffic
management ITS, finding that the goals did not take into account the
level of ITS needed to accomplish local objectives and priorities; did
not reflect whether localities were operating the ITS as intended; and
did not adequately capture the cost-effectiveness of ITS.\7\ Additional
studies of ITS deployment have found that local officials are aware of
ITS technologies but feel that the benefits are not adequately
described.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO-05-943, Highway Congestion: Intelligent Transportation
Systems' Promise for Managing Congestion Falls Short, and DOT Could
Better Facilitate Their Strategic Use.
\8\ Deakin, B. Mainstreaming Intelligent Transportation Systems:
Findings from a Survey of California Leaders, 2004.
Recommendations from TRB
With support from FHWA, TRB's Research and Technology Coordinating
Committee (RTCC) has periodically assessed the state of highway
research and made recommendations to policy-makers. In its recent
report, TRB Special Report 295, The Federal Investment in Highway
Research, 2006-2009: Strengths and Weaknesses, the RTCC evaluated the
investments in highway R&D made under SAFETEA-LU. According to the
report, transportation R&D is significantly under funded when compared
with the R&D investments made in other industrial sectors. Also, the
report recommended that the matching requirement for UTCs be adjusted
from 50 percent to 20 percent. According to the RTCC, if UTCs relied
less on State DOTs and others for matching funds, they would be free to
pursue longer-term advanced research topics and move away from applied
research that could be handled elsewhere. The RTCC recommended that
FHWA's Exploratory Advanced Research Program continue as well, and that
a larger percentage of the agency's research budget go toward advanced
research. Additionally, the report states that all research grants,
including those to UTCs, should be made on a competitive, merit-
reviewed basis. The RTCC recommended that FHWA be given more resources
to engage stakeholders and carry out technology transfer activities.
FHWA should be given the resources to take the lead in establishing an
ongoing process whereby the highway community can set these priorities.
Finally, the RTCC noted that the Strategic Highway Research Program 2
(SHRP 2) was funded significantly less than stakeholders had requested,
and recommended that it continue to receive funding for another two
years. TRB states many recommendations but does not provide specific
mechanisms to accomplish them.
V. Background
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
The Federal Highway Administration oversees surface transportation
infrastructure planning, construction, and maintenance; develops
educational and training programs for transportation workers; and funds
research efforts in surface transportation fields. Within FHWA, the
Office of Research, Development, and Technology directs the
Administration's transportation research efforts.
Office of Research, Development, and Technology
The Office of Research, Development, and Technology funds research
into pavements, structures, safety initiatives, highway operations, and
environmental interests. The Office of Research, Development, and
Technology directs most of the research funds for DOT and operates the
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center.
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC)
TFHRC operates as the hub for highway research by developing
research plans in support of FHWA strategic goals; managing
policy, budget, and administrative services for its research
customers; and initiating strategic marketing plans to ensure
the utilization of highway research.
Exploratory Advanced Research Program (EARP)
EARP manages longer-term, higher-risk research aimed at
addressing mission-oriented technology and knowledge gaps as
mandated in SAFETEA-LU. Intending to react to the call for more
long-term research, this program seeks out projects not
directed to solve specific current problems, but to enable
approaches to future transportation questions.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)
RITA is mandated to coordinate, facilitate and review the DOT's
research and development activities, including those funded through
FHWA.
Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program
Office (ITS JPO)
ITS JPO was created in the Mineta Act of 2004 to take over
coordination of the Intelligent Transportation Systems program.
ITS JPO focuses on developing transportation infrastructure and
vehicles with integrated communication systems intended to
deliver up-to-date information to both drivers and decision-
makers. This information could be used to coordinate State
department of transportation emergency efforts, relieve
congestion through metropolitan signal coordination and enable
on-the-go planning of efficient driving routes with up-to-date
traffic information.
University Transportation Research
University Transportation Center (UTC) programs support
almost 60 university-based centers that conduct transportation
research in all disciplines and support educational activities
for the next generation of transportation professionals. The
centers are funded on a 50/50 matching funds agreement.
Generally, the states provide the matching funds, and while the
UTCs are intended to jointly operate as a multi-modal system
focused on the DOT's strategic objectives, these matching funds
often provide opportunities for State departments of
transportation to channel efforts towards specific regional
transportation issues.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
BTS is a component of the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration (RITA) that collects, compiles, analyzes, and
publishes transportation statistics in freight, travel and
aviation; transportation economics; and geospatial issues. BTS
is utilized by Federal, State, and local governments;
universities; and the private sector. Data sets made available
to customers can include air carrier traffic, border crossing,
and national freight movement.
John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
A fee-for-service organization, the Volpe Center is a center
designed to respond to issues brought forth to them by Federal,
State, and local governments; industry; and academia. The
Center assists these clients in a number of areas including
human factors research; system design, implementation, and
assessment; environmental preservation; and organizational
effectiveness. DOT makes up about two-thirds of the Volpe
Center's contracted funding.
Transportation Safety Institute (TSI)
TSI is also a fee-for-service organization utilized by
Federal, State, and local governments; industry; and the
international community; that develops and conducts worldwide
safety, security, and environmental training. TSI focuses on
education programs developed in collaboration with the client
organizations to meet specific situation needs. Training and
educational information is disseminated through publications,
websites, seminars, and classes.
The Transportation Research Board
TRB is one of five major divisions of the National Research
Council; the principal operating agency of the National Research
Council. TRB receives federal funding to manage cooperative research
efforts and issue published analyses of transportation policy and
research strategy. Two of the research efforts managed by TRB are the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program and the Strategic Highway
Research Program 2.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
NCHRP is a program aimed providing solutions to near-term
problems in the transportation industry by tackling an annual
list of research topics developed by State departments of
transportation. NCHRO is administered by TRB and sponsored by
the State departments of transportation in the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Strategic Highway Research Program 2
SHRP 2 is a highway research program designed to advance
highway performance and safety for the U.S. highway system.
This program focuses on four areas of research that were
identified by a TRB-established committee of leaders from the
highway community: safety, infrastructure renewal, reliability,
and transportation capacity. Funding is transferred through
FHWA for execution by TRB with an expected program completion
date of FY 2009.
Chair Wu. Good morning. This hearing will come to order.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled An Overview of
Transportation Research and Development: Priorities for
Reauthorization.
I want to welcome everyone to the Technology and Innovation
Subcommittee's first hearing of the 111th Congress. This
subcommittee was very productive in the 110th, moving the Small
Business Innovative Research Program Reauthorization, Green
Transportation Legislation, the 10,000 Trained by 2010, Health
Information Technology Education Reauthorization--I am sorry--
Legislation, and the U.S. Fire Administration Reauthorization
and the National Institute of Standards and Technology portions
of the COMPETES Act. I am certain that we can maintain this
quick pace in the 111th Congress, and it is my intention to do
so on a basis where both sides of the aisle will be
participating vigorously in these processes.
And first up on our agenda and the subject of this first
hearing is Surface Transportation Research and Development in
preparation for the Surface Transportation Reauthorization
Bill. I can think of a no more appropriate topic for this
subcommittee to begin with as Congress concludes debate on an
economic stimulus package that includes multi-billions of
dollars for surface transportation projects.
As we start these and other major infrastructure
initiatives, we all agree that we should deploy the most
recent, efficient, proven surface transportation technologies
to ensure that we are building the highways of the past--I am
sorry--the highways of the future and not of the past. Today's
hearing is an overview, an assessment of our current R&D
investments, their coordination, and their focus. This will be
the first in a series of hearings as this subcommittee develops
a surface transportation title that will later be incorporated
into the comprehensive Surface Transportation Bill.
In reviewing some of the Transportation Research Board's
recent assessments of our surface transportation investments, I
am somewhat concerned that the recommendations focus on
increased funding as the sole means to overcome the challenges
identified, including slow technology transfer and a lack of
clear national priorities in DOT's (Department of
Transportation's) R&D spending. More money is sometimes
necessary. It is difficult in our current environment, and
sometimes it is not a solution to a lack of coordination or a
lack of focus.
What I hope to learn today, and in this series of hearings,
is how to make our federal investments in surface
transportation research and development as effective and as
efficient as possible in overcoming the challenges of
congestion mitigation and its impact on our lives and on the
external environment.
I want to thank our panel of witnesses for taking the time
from their busy schedules to be with us today.
Now I would like to recognize my colleague from Nebraska,
Representative Smith, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chair Wu follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chair David Wu
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``An Overview of Transportation
R&D: Priorities for Reauthorization.''
I want to welcome everyone to the Technology and Innovation
Subcommittee's first hearing of the 111th Congress. This subcommittee
was very productive in the 110th, moving the Small Business Innovation
Research program reauthorization, green transportation legislation, the
10,000 Trained by 2010 health information technology education
legislation, the U.S. Fire Administration reauthorization, and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology portion of the COMPETES
Act. I am certain we can maintain this pace in the 111th Congress.
Our first hearing focuses on surface transportation research and
development programs, in preparation for the surface transportation
reauthorization bill. I can think of no more appropriate topic for this
subcommittee to begin with, as Congress debates an economic stimulus
package that contains $30 billion for surface transportation projects.
As we commence this major infrastructure initiative, we all agree that
we should deploy the most recent and proven surface transportation
technologies to ensure we're building the highways of the future, not
the highways of the past.
Today's hearing is an overview and assessment of our current R&D
investments. This will be the first in a series of hearings as the
Subcommittee develops a surface transportation title that will later be
incorporated into the comprehensive surface transportation bill.
In reviewing some of the Transportation Research Board's recent
assessments of our surface transportation investments, I have been
disappointed by their recommendations that focus on increased funding
as the means to overcome the challenges they identify, including slow
technology transfer and a lack of clear national priorities in DOT's
R&D spending. I don't think more money is a practical or realistic
recommendation in our current economic environment.
What I hope to learn today, and in this series of hearings, is how
to make our federal investments in surface transportation R&D as
effective and efficient as possible in overcoming the challenges of
congestion mitigation and its impact on the environment.
I want to thank our panel of witnesses for taking the time from
their busy schedules to appear for us today.
And now I would like to recognize Representative Smith for his
opening statement.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure to return
to business today, and I look forward to a productive and
collaborative 111th Congress on this subcommittee.
The economic challenges facing our nation are of utmost
importance to us all. We must ensure our nation's citizens have
the opportunity to create and innovate. We must support
entrepreneurship and see that businesses are allowed to become
more nimble, more efficient, and more competitive. I believe
the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation will take an
active role in shaping our economic recovery and certainly
competitiveness.
I look forward to working closely with you, Mr. Chair, and
the rest of my colleagues on the Subcommittee in accomplishing
this task.
The agencies we oversee on this subcommittee are vital to
the Nation's health and well-being. The National Institute of
Standards and Technology performs cutting-edge research which
supports the next generation of computers and electronics, the
next generation of fuel-efficient vehicles, and the next
generation of health care technologies. The Department of
Homeland Security continues to perform lifesaving work to
ensure our safety and security, and the Department of
Transportation supports the highways and railways vital to our
commerce and way of life.
Chair Wu, we have a lot of work ahead of us certainly, and
all of these agencies may see funding increases due to a
stimulus plan and all will need to have close oversight to
ensure we are spending taxpayer dollars wisely. I am happy our
first hearing of the year addresses one of the major challenges
facing our nation in Congress this year; infrastructure
research and development.
We are currently contemplating spending billions of dollars
on highway and railway infrastructure improvements. We will
need to ask important questions in order to address the issues
facing our nation's aging infrastructure. How will these
projects incorporate science and technology to extend the life
of and improve the quality of our transportation networks? How
have our R&D programs performed over the past several years,
and what can we do to improve them?
We expect most R&D to be relevant to the problems at hand
and expect research agencies to focus on the real-world
outcomes of such research. The witnesses before us today all
have expertise in translating results from the lab to the road.
I would like to thank you all for coming today and sharing your
thoughts on how to improve our transportation networks and our
research activities. I look forward to starting a dialogue with
you during the question and answer portion of today's hearing
and hope you will continue to work with us as we craft a new
highway bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, it is a pleasure to serve as
Ranking Member of this subcommittee, and I look forward to
continuing this bipartisan and productive relationship. I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Adrian Smith
It is a pleasure to return to business today and I look forward to
a productive and collaborative 111th Congress on this subcommittee. The
economic challenges facing our nation are of utmost importance to us
all. We must ensure our nation's citizens have the opportunity to
create and innovate. We must support entrepreneurship and help our
businesses become more nimble, more efficient, and more competitive. I
believe the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation will take an
active role in shaping our economic recovery and competitiveness. I
look forward to working closely with you, Chairman Wu, and the rest of
my colleagues on the Subcommittee in accomplishing this task.
The agencies we oversee on this subcommittee are vital to the
Nation's health and well-being. The National Institute of Standards and
Technology performs cutting edge research which supports the next
generation of computers and electronics, the next generation of fuel-
efficient cars, and the next generation of health care technologies.
The Department of Homeland Security continues to perform life-saving
work to ensure our safety and security. And the Department of
Transportation supports the highways and railways vital to our commerce
and way of life. Chairman Wu, we have a lot of work ahead of us. All of
these agencies may see funding increases due to a stimulus plan and all
will need close oversight to ensure we are spending taxpayer dollars
wisely.
I am happy our first hearing of the year addresses one of the major
challenges facing our nation and Congress this year--infrastructure
research and development. We are currently contemplating spending
billions of dollars on highway and railway infrastructure improvements.
We will need to ask important questions in order to address the issues
facing our nation's aging infrastructure. How will these projects
incorporate science and technology to extend the life of and improve
the quality of our transportation networks? How have our R&D programs
performed over the past several years and what can we do to improve
them? We expect most R&D to be relevant to the problems at hand and
expect research agencies to focus on the real-world outcomes of such
research.
The witnesses before us today all have expertise in translating
results from the lab to the road. 1'd like to thank you all for coming
today and sharing your thoughts on how to improve our transportation
networks and our research activities. I look forward to starting a
dialogue with you during the question and answer portion of today's
hearing and hope you will continue to work with us as we craft a new
highway bill.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Again, it is a pleasure to serve as Ranking
Member of this subcommittee and I look forward to continuing this
bipartisan and productive relationship. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. If there are
other Members who wish to submit additional opening statements,
your statements will be added to the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we will discuss surface transportation research and
development funding, planning, and execution.
Surface transportation research and development is critical as the
population continues to grow and congestion continues to increase.
Take Arizona, for example, which is one of the fastest growing
states in the Nation. Since 1970, our population has more than tripled.
The Phoenix metropolitan area, long the largest in our state, is now
one of the largest in the Nation.
Not surprisingly, all this growth has created an urgent need for
new transportation infrastructure and congestion mitigation efforts.
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has been a leader
in transportation research and technology and has engaged in several
research efforts to improve infrastructure problems such as monitoring
and managing congestion and experimenting with pavement materials.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we can
encourage the development of new technologies and materials.
I yield back.
Chair Wu. It is now my pleasure to introduce our witnesses.
Mr. Paul Brubaker is the Former Administrator of the Research
and Innovative Technology Administration of the U.S. Department
of Transportation. Dr. Elizabeth Deakin is the Director of the
University of California Transportation Center at the
University of California, Berkeley. Mr. Amadeo Saenz is the
Executive Director of the Texas Department of Transportation.
Mr. Robert Skinner is the Executive Director of the
Transportation Research Board. And our final witness is Mr.
David Wise, the Acting Director of Physical Infrastructure
Issues at the Government Accountability Office.
You will each have five minutes for your spoken testimony.
Your written testimony will be included in the record for this
hearing, and when you complete all of your testimony, we will
begin with questions, and each Member will have five minutes to
question the panel. We will go as many rounds as there are
questions or we have time for, whichever arrives first.
Mr. Brubaker, please begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAUL R. BRUBAKER, FORMER
ADMINISTRATOR, RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Brubaker. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Smith,
Vice Chair Lujan, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Paul Brubaker, and I had the honor of serving as the
Administrator of the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration (RITA) at the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) from August, 2007, until January 20 of this year.
Oh, I am sorry.
I am pleased to be here today to testify on what I think is
the real tipping point in the transportation infrastructure;
how we leverage research going forward to transform our
transportation infrastructure.
I have submitted written testimony as you know for the
record, but I would like to highlight some key points in my
oral testimony.
During my tenure at RITA we attempted to establish a
process by which research funding decisions were made,
executed, and evaluated, as well as develop a construct to
actually manage research, in portfolios based on multi-modal
communities of interest. We weren't entirely successful.
However, we did make significant progress in at least
establishing a degree of transparency into the research spent
which hadn't been reached before. The transparency is only the
beginning. Decisions where to spend the 1.2 billion in research
dollars must be based on strategic research objectives
established in a holistic, multi-modal, and focused national
transportation research agenda that covers all aspects of the
transportation picture and drives innovation into the system.
For all research funded by the Department or through the
Highway Trust Fund, outcome expectations and performance
measures should be agreed upon in advance, progress should be
monitored, and performance should be measured after the
projects are complete. The Surface Transportation Authorization
provides us an opportunity to redefine how we approach and
conduct transportation research in a way that better serves our
nation.
Before asking for additional transportation research
dollars, I strongly believe we must ensure that current dollars
are being spent wisely. As it stands right now nobody, and I
mean nobody, can say with reasonable assurance or authority
that funds are being spent wisely or in a manner that best
reflects the overall national transportation priorities. We
have an opportunity to fix this optimal situation by creating a
new transportation research paradigm.
One good place to start is to ensure that RITA, and you
might naturally expect me to say this, is both sufficiently
resourced and allowed to perform its role that was created
under the Mineta Act to coordinate the research spend for the
Department, but more importantly, to develop that holistic
process where the Secretary can select, control, and evaluate
research in a strategic context based on a to-be-developed
national transportation research agenda that reflects a broad
group of stakeholders, ranging from states and localities to
personal and commercial uses of our national transportation
system, to accident victims, police and first responders, even
economic development officials from states and localities.
I have made other recommendations including the
establishment of the Transportation Advanced Research Projects
Agency, the consolidation of research functions under RITA, and
funds set aside for innovative research projects that can be
carried out by a variety of institutions and individuals. Those
are included in my written testimony.
I look forward to a constructive discussion today on ways
to improve our transportation research to better leverage our
existing investments and better serve the American public.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brubaker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul R. Brubaker
Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Smith, Vice Chairman Lujan,
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Paul Brubaker and
I had the honor of serving as the Administrator of the Research and
Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) at the U.S. Department of
Transportation from August 2007 until January 20th of this year and I
am pleased to be before you this morning to discuss lessons learned
during my tenure; suggestions on how to improve transportation
research; ways in which we can deploy the results of that research; and
some thinking as it relates to the new surface transportation
legislation.
Based on my recent experience, I believe we have a tremendous
opportunity to shape a National Transportation Research program that
has the potential to transform how we move people and goods across the
Nation and indeed re-establish our global position as leaders of a new,
innovative and efficient transportation paradigm. In order to achieve
this lofty goal, we will need to rethink our approach to transportation
research; build on a couple of innovations that I attempted to
implement during my brief term; and establish structural improvements
that can ensure the level of innovation that is often promised but
rarely realized.
In your invitation you laid out a series of questions that I will
attempt to answer in my testimony but with some additional information
that I hope will provide a more complete narrative.
The current transportation research and development investment
structure is improving--but what it really needs is a complete
overhaul.
Early in my tenure it was clear that the fundamental legislative
requirements of the Mineta Act, which created my office and called on
RITA to coordinate the Department's transportation research, were not
being met. While the Department established a Research Planning Council
and a Research Planning Team--it could best be described as a loose
governance process that was only meant to ``rubber stamp'' the
Department's $1.2 billion in transportation research money was spent--
with no enterprise level coordination as the law--as I read it--
required.
After conducting a pretty quick assessment of the situation I asked
RITA's RD&T staff to establish a framework by which we could prioritize
transportation research investments to better reflect and align to the
strategic goals of the Department and the Administration. I further
requested that this framework be based on the Capital Planning and
Investment Control (CPIC) processes mandated by OMB circular A-11 for
the government's capital investments because there were a number of
similarities and the GAO had established a nice corresponding maturity
model for organizations to use in developing and using CPIC for
technology investments.
The framework that was initially conceived, originally known as
Research Planning and Investment Control (RPIC), cannot only prioritize
investments, but was designed to monitor and track research outcomes
over the life of the project and manage the research in portfolios.
However, due to cultural resistance to change, the word ``control'' in
RPIC was changed to ``coordination,'' the investment prioritization
activities, the research monitoring plans, and the concept of portfolio
management were all scrapped. The RPIC project was relegated to a
``pilot'' program and today is essentially a data base of existing
research programs that can be viewed by multi-modal communities of
interest (e.g., human factors; materials; safety systems) and across
the modes. While this transparency is good and desirable, RPIC was
originally conceived to do considerably more--it was to serve as a
decision support, program management and program evaluation tool so
that we could select, evaluate and control the underlying research
spending in a manner consistent with research investment criteria.
The current incarnation of the RPIC process ``buckets'' existing
spending to communities of interest but the actual decisions to invest
in particular research activity are made almost exclusively by the
modes. Consequently, the current spending of the Department's research
resources is not subject to a systematic Department-wide
prioritization. This spending is most often aligned with the wishes of
a number of key stakeholders in each of the modes, or in some cases is
the result of a Congressional earmark but the Department's portfolio of
transportation research does not represent a comprehensive, holistic
program that supports an overall National Transportation Research
Agenda.
The University Transportation Centers represent approximately $70M
of research spending each year. It is the one program where RITA has
complete visibility over the research spending and reviews the
strategic plans for consistency with the Department's overall strategic
plan. Given the mission of the UTC program--to train the next
generation of transportation leadership--there is strong evidence that
the program is meeting that goal.
Clearly, we need to improve the current transportation R&D
investment structure. My suggestion would be to start over. Begin with
the development of a National Transportation Research Agenda. This
agenda should take a comprehensive, holistic, multi-modal view of our
transportation system and receive input from the Congress,
Administration, transportation system user communities and all
stakeholders--not just the ones with the deepest pockets--and establish
and outline the key objectives and desired outcomes of our
transportation system. It should then clearly map research programs and
spending to the outcomes and goals outlined in the plan and clearly
describe how these projects will help us achieve our goals and achieve
our desired outcomes.
Once that agenda is established, a governance process--much like
that originally conceived for the RPIC--explicitly supported by the
Secretary and managed on behalf of the Secretary by RITA, should
examine all of the research programs and proposals that receive any
direct or indirect federal dollars, and only those that are consistent
with the goals of the National Transportation Research Agenda should be
funded. Those that are funded should be monitored and evaluated. A
dedicated office of technology transfer, perhaps within RITA, could
help ensure that the relevant, valuable knowledge (for both successful
and unsuccessful projects) is shared and when appropriate, that
successful innovations are commercialized and/or generate new levels of
research.
The Department, through RITA, should also act as a facilitator of
knowledge through the use of advanced collaboration capabilities that
would allow researchers to self-organize around communities of
interest. During my tenure, we attempted the creation of such an
environment--think Facebook for the transportation research community--
that would make knowledge sharing and technology transfer much more
convenient and effective as collaboration and reporting could be
accomplished virtually. Those not wishing to share results until the
research projects are completed could create password protected work
spaces that would restrict access only to those working on the project.
While at RITA, we built the first generation of this collaborative
capability at www.transportationresearch.gov. It is only the beginning
of what could become an interesting new paradigm in research
collaboration and ironically may bring the Internet back to its roots.
Our ability in the transportation research community to
successfully transfer, commercialize and deploy new methods,
innovations, and technology must be refocused. Currently, there is no
systematic or focused program, process or set of activities that are
driving innovations out of the laboratory and onto our Nation's roads,
rails, runways or waterways. Most in the community believe that
effective technology transfer only involves having researchers share
their research by publishing peer reviewed articles in transportation
research journals or presenting papers at conferences. Researchers
communicating with other researchers is a valuable way to share
knowledge--it is also a sure fire way to ensure that these advances or
ideas rarely get commercialized.
We must focus on a new model and process to achieve technology
transfer that leads to commercialization and deployment of new
transportation-related technologies. Unfortunately, we may miss a prime
opportunity to drive innovation into the transportation infrastructure
through the stimulus spending but it may be an order too difficult to
fill in short order.
Only a new approach to technology transfer and commercialization
that is focused on transparency, openness, and a systematic way to
communicate with a broader set of industry, entrepreneurs, investors
and other interested parties will succeed in fostering innovation and
ensuring wider-spread deployment of these innovations. For years, this
has largely been an ``inside game'' managed by a relatively small
group--an example of that President Eisenhower foresaw in his farewell
speech in January, 1961--which virtually ensures that an innovator
tinkering in the garage has no chance of getting his or her ideas
vetted.
We need to look beyond the universe of traditional gatekeepers and
work to facilitate the timely testing and standards development that
would allow rapid prototyping, piloting and deployment of these new
technologies. In short, we must move closer to technology development
times versus industrial age development cycles. I have witnessed a
great number of good ideas that are available today--but may not be
deployed for decades to come because of a variety of cultural,
structural and systemic obstacles--mostly related to intolerance of
risk and processes that have the effect of stifling innovation. This
can change. But it will require a collective commitment and leadership
that is willing to deploy a systematic way of improving technology
transfer and commercialization.
As the Congress begins drafting the next surface transportation
legislation, it will have a unique opportunity to change the focus from
strictly ``highways'' and direct spending and programs that better
reflect the way we actually travel. While highways are indeed an
integral part of this equation, the view must be significantly expanded
to include or at least accommodate alternative modes for people and
freight to include rail, high speed passenger rail and transit, and
water transportation. We even must integrate air as we consider this
holistic picture.
The next surface transportation authorization must ensure that the
transportation research budget and that of the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics is directly aligned with the National Transportation
Research Agenda which should be updated and published every two years
by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration in
coordination with the Administration, the Departmental leadership, the
users of the systems and key stakeholders.
The budget should be aligned and adjusted based on changing
priorities and the portfolio of projects should be balanced according
to the priorities reflected in the agenda. This portfolio should be
transparent both within and outside of the department and the final
annual budget and program plan should be public. This way, citizens
from anywhere in the county can examine the portfolio and its
anticipated outcomes and compare actual results to anticipated results.
Such increased transparency may actually improve achieve deployment of
these technologies and methods as more people and entrepreneurs will
have access to the new ideas being explored by the Department and its
research community.
There is also a clear role for the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics but it should be much focused and adequately resourced to
monitor the performance of the Nation's transportation system. It must
also expand its role and develop forecasting models and simulations
that can help us drive research proposals as it will help us better
understand the potential impact of alternative investments and research
results as well as ensure that it has the capability to further our
understanding of external events that impact our transportation system.
For example, with this capability BTS could have been able to model the
impact of fluctuating fuel prices on our national logistics system and
passenger movement system.
Perhaps not surprisingly, I believe that RITA should remain the
Department's focal point for transportation research--but it must be
significantly strengthened--this will require a significant and
substantial investment in people and money. RITA's first order of
business should be to coordinate the formulation of the National
Transportation Research Agenda--one that represents a cross-modal and
holistic view of our national transportation system. This can only be
developed with significant input from the user community and from
stakeholders. The research agenda must also be multi- or intermodal in
nature and not be primarily or disproportionately focused on highways
to the exclusion of other modes--the only way to accomplish this is to
provide direct funding.
Then, RITA should establish and manage a governance process that
can align and direct transportation research resources in a manner that
is consistent with the National Transportation Research Agenda. RITA
could build on the RPIC process to achieve this goal but most
importantly, the research portfolio should be managed and evaluated for
its outcomes, results and effectiveness by developing transparent
program and project evaluations and lessons learned that can be used to
determine appropriate follow on research and serve as a basis for
technology transfer and commercialization of the promising research.
RITA should also continue to play an active role in overseeing the
University Transportation Research as well as house appropriate multi-
modal research activity--such as the Intelligent Transportation System
and Alternative Fuels program--and should expand its oversight role to
include the approval and oversight of any Department or indirect
federal dollars going to any University or not-for-profit research
entity for transportation-related research. This includes the
coordination, review and approval of any projects directly or
indirectly receiving federal funds that are managed by the
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Although controversial, the Committee should examine the
feasibility of consolidating all of the research laboratories within
the Department. These could be centrally managed by RITA or at a
minimum be subject to strict oversight by RITA to ensure that their
activities are consistent with and achieving the objectives of the
National Transportation Research agenda. Currently, a number of the
modes have research labs dedicated toward performing transportation
research. For example, the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in
Virginia currently performs a great deal of highway related materials
and systems research. In many cases, similar if not identical research
is also being conducted at a number of universities--some of which is
funded by the Federal Highway Administration. While it may be
appropriate in some cases to validate research results, I believe the
resistance to visibility and oversight as well as the failure of the
Department to drive toward better management of the research portfolio
continues to encourage research redundancy and waste.
Finally, I would like to suggest that a certain portion of the
Department's Transportation Research funding--at least half--go toward
advanced systems research--and directed by RITA consistent with the
National Transportation Research Agenda. I would propose that the
majority of the funding be used to establish a Transportation Advanced
Research Projects Agency. The balance of the funds should be used for
worthy projects proposed by the Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center, Turner-Fairbank, The Transportation Research Board,
Universities and other potential worthy and qualified grantees
including those who tinker in their garages.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the ideas to you this
morning and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Biography for Paul R. Brubaker
Paul Brubaker recently joined Cisco Systems, Inc. as leader of its
North American public sector team in the Internet Business Solutions
Group (IBSG).
Paul has an unusual blend of public and private sector experience.
He has served in both the legislative and executive branches of the
U.S. Federal Government. During his service in legislative branch, Paul
worked for the General Accounting Office and eventually became Minority
Staff Director of the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management where he worked on a number of reform efforts including
leading the effort that resulted in passage of the Information
Technology Management Reform Act linking federal investment in
technology to measurable improvements in mission performance and
establishing CIO positions in major federal agencies.
In 1998, Paul was appointed by President Clinton to serve as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense and Deputy Chief Information Officer and
in 2007 he was appointed by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate
to serve as the Administrator for Research, Innovation and Technology
at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
In the private sector, Paul founded two successful small businesses
and has worked in a number of senior strategy positions with government
contractors including: Litton PRC; Commerce One; and SI International.
At SI international, he served as Executive Vice President and led the
government and investor relations activities while serving as Chief
Marketing Officer where he also re-engineered and automated a number of
sales and proposal processes. While at Commerce One, Paul led a
management buy-out of the firm's public sector professional services
unit which he took private.
In his spare time, he has served as the Chairman of the Virginia
Innovative Technology Authority, Chairman of the Technology Committee
of the International Armed Forces Communications and Electronics
Association, and as a board member of the Churchill Centre.
For his work in government Paul has received numerous awards
including the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal
(with palm device); The Gold Medal from the Department of
Transportation; the Association for Federal Information Resource
Management Federal Executive of the Year in 2000; and was a two-time
winner of the Federal 100 Award from Federal Computer Week.
Chair Wu. Thank you, Mr. Brubaker.
Next, Dr. Deakin, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. ELIZABETH DEAKIN, PROFESSOR OF CITY AND
REGIONAL PLANNING; DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
TRANSPORTATION CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Dr. Deakin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was asked today to
speak about some research that we did at the University of
California on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and let
me start with----
Chair Wu. Dr. Deakin, is your microphone on?
Dr. Deakin. It seems to be.
Chair Wu. Okay. Pull it a little bit closer.
Dr. Deakin. Let me pull it closer.
Chair Wu. There we go.
Dr. Deakin. Is that working?
Chair Wu. Yes.
Dr. Deakin. Okay. I would like to talk to you about the
research findings from our study of Intelligent Transportation
Systems and how to get them into the mainstream in
transportation. This is a study that was funded by CalTrans,
who had spent a good deal of its own money, as well as federal
funds, to invest in intelligent transportation and was
concerned about whether they were getting their dollars' worth
from the projects.
What we found in a series of interviews with decision-
makers, as well as with technology experts and the decision-
makers both in the public and in the private sector, was that
while there were some valuable gains in such things as traffic
signal timing, road tolling, better data collection, cheaper
methods for gathering data and assembling it, monitoring the
systems, and managing them, there also is a concern among the
decision-makers that there really was a need for a tougher,
more arms-length evaluation of the cost effectiveness of these
investments, and there also was a need for a business plan for
these investments that hadn't yet been developed.
And one of the reasons for that was a lack of real focus on
institutions and business budgets and costs and effectiveness.
This is social science research. There is a lot of interest in
what kind of institutions it would take to implement these
kinds of strategies.
One of the problems is that we have tried to include
deployment in ITS projects, but it has been done by the
technology experts, who are not necessarily the experts in
institutions and planning and policy. And so we have concluded
that we need to create a different framework and a different
set of research foci that would compliment the technology
development, really help it move into implementation. And that
might extend to new kinds of partnerships and oversight that
involves the private sector as well as government to really do
a tough business plan for these technologies as they are being
developed.
I was also asked to address the question of University
Transportation Centers (UTCs), something that I have some
experience with, having directed the center in Region Nine for
ten years. University Transportation Centers do research, they
do tech transfer, and they produce graduates. The graduates are
a form of technology transfer in some ways because they go out
into the agencies and the consulting firms and the private
sector with the latest knowledge and learn on the job how to
deploy that knowledge. So we look at them as an important
product.
The Transportation Centers Program expanded greatly under
the last Transportation Bill from the original ten to a total
of 60 centers now, 20 of which competed for their funds and 40
of which were selected by Congress. My own view is the
competition is a very good way to choose transportation centers
because it assures that the best ideas are able to compete and
win in a kind of marketplace. I also have to acknowledge,
though, that some of the earmarked centers have used that
opportunity as a chance to really show that they could develop
and have developed and become successful.
A big issue on both the UTCs and ITS is measuring
performance, and I think performance has to be measured on
outcomes, not on inputs, not just on the number of counts of
papers produced or dollars spent, but actually what has been
accomplished that has changed things, that has made the
transportation system better, cheaper, faster, more equitable,
and more environmentally sound. And we need to move in that
direction quickly.
One way to do that is to increase coordination in research,
which is the third topic I was asked to address. I think that
can be, and is being, done much better than it was even a few
years ago because of investments that the Transportation
Research Board, that RITA, and that others have made in
creating really good websites where we can coordinate the
research and see what everybody else is doing. There really is
no excuse for duplication with the kind of information that is
now being made available.
On the other hand, I don't think that all projects that are
doing the same thing are duplications. Sometimes we learn by
doing multiple cases, and we really need to be able to do that.
So replication has to be distinguished from duplication, and we
will go ahead faster and gain better if we do that.
I do think that the strategic plan that Mr. Brubaker just
described is a critical element in being able to manage
research. We have to have a new strategic plan that really
represents the new directions in policy that the country is
pursuing under this Administration and under the changing
information about science and technology that comes along. We
need to keep that plan up to date and renew it, and I think the
partnerships have to go beyond just DOT. They have to go to
other agencies in a much stronger way than they have, to
agriculture, to energy, to environmental agencies, and further,
they have to go to the private sector in a stronger way than
they have because we can't do this alone. And we need some new
models on how to deliver our transportation systems so they
will be cost effective.
And so I really think that plan has to be the starting
point. It has to be outcome-focused. It has to be across the
board integrating all the ideas and issues that we have to
address in the next few years. We need to develop the plan
quickly so that we will be able to have a framework for making
decisions on what is a good investment in research and
technology.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Deakin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elizabeth Deakin
Millions of dollars are spent each year on transportation research.
How can we be sure that these investments are effective and that the
research findings are reflected in transportation decision-making? Here
I briefly consider investments in Intelligent Transportation Systems,
in University Transportation Centers, and in USDOT-led research, and
recommend three strategies that could improve research and its utility:
more emphasis on social science research to frame and complement
technology-focused R&D; investing in long-term and exploratory research
as well as in short-term, problem-solving studies, and framing research
and investment in a strategic planning and evaluation context focused
on outcomes rather than project categories.
A Bigger Role for Social Science Research: Evidence from Studies of the
Implementation of Intelligent Transportation
Systems
In a study conducted in 2003, researchers at the University of
California investigated factors affecting ITS implementation as a
``mainstream'' transportation planning activity (Deakin et al., 2002;
Deakin, 2006). We conducted a detailed literature review, interviewed
fifty-one leaders from a cross-section of California jurisdictions and
agencies, surveyed 228 California transportation engineers, planners,
and transit staff members, and had follow-up interviews with 52 of the
staff members and 20 national transportation leaders with expertise in
ITS.
ITS experts felt that ITS implementation has been slow, and
attributed this to a lack of knowledge about ITS among elected
officials and the public, as well as a lack of funding specifically for
ITS. In contrast, our interviews with California leaders--elected
officials and agency heads--revealed widespread familiarity with ITS
concepts and applications (though many were irritated by ITS jargon and
were unwilling to use it). Policy-makers cited freight applications,
electronic toll tags, improved traffic signal systems, bus rapid
transit projects, and traveler information signage as examples of ITS
success. From the policy-makers' perspective, ITS elements that are not
proceeding well suffer from institutional and political problems (e.g.,
efforts to route additional traffic on local arterials when the freeway
is congested) or market weaknesses (e.g., efforts to sell traffic
information to third party providers). Overall, most elected officials
and senior policy staff members felt that ITS innovations are being
implemented at a reasonable pace.
Elected officials were concerned, however, about a lack of good
information on ITS benefits and costs, and some expressed concern that
ITS evaluations have been less than arms-length. A number of leaders
also commented that ITS proposals have focused too heavily on
transportation system management benefits rather than traveler
benefits. Some also argued that the private sector should be left to
implement ITS applications such as traveler information systems.
Respondents suggested that the state DOT should lead by example,
implementing ready-to-go technologies on its own facilities and within
its own agency. Stronger partnerships with local government and other
State agencies, developing mutually beneficial, multi-purpose
applications, were recommended. Finally, respondents urged that future
ITS work should pay more attention to legal and institutional issues
and provide a clearer sense of ``next steps.''
Interviews with national experts identified additional issues.
There was near-unanimous agreement that DOTs are having difficulty with
ITS implementation because partnerships are needed to implement and
partnerships necessitate a change in agency culture, including less
hierarchical decision-making. In the experts' view, separate ITS units
and ITS implementation plans can foster strategic thinking about ITS
technology development but may hinder ITS incorporation into ongoing
plans, programs, and funding streams. Earmarked funding for ITS was
seen as appropriate for demonstration projects, to test concepts and
provide examples, and when ideas are accepted but resources are low;
traffic signal timing, which produces valuable cumulative benefits but
is low-visibility and typically a low priority for local governments,
was given as a case where earmarked funds may be needed to induce
action.
Based on these findings, we recommended a refocusing of applied ITS
research across a wider range of applications, as well as greater
attention to research on implementation, including market studies and
work on strategies to foster consensus building and partnerships for
ITS.
A follow-up study currently underway suggests that many findings of
our earlier work still hold true (Deakin, Frick, and Skabardonis,
forthcoming). While efforts have been made to increase deployment of
ITS, these efforts have continued to focus primarily on technology
details rather than evaluating the broader questions of costs and
benefits, markets and institutions that are also needed. Agencies have
tried to address the latter issues and bring greater attention to
implementation by requiring ``technology transfer'' elements in every
project, but we find that this has been less successful than the
agencies had hoped. One reason is that the assessments are often done
as an add-on to a technology development or field test, often by the
same staff members who developed the technology or test. But experts in
science, engineering and technology are not necessarily expert in
economics, policy design, planning, public support, and implementation,
which are all social science fields of inquiry. We should not expect
that our technical experts will excel at market studies, policy
analyses, or social, economic, and environmental assessments any more
than the marketing and public policy department of a technology firm
would be expected to do engineering and technology development.
Investments in social science research are what are needed, especially
in the form of independent assessments conducted in consultation with
technology developers. Such efforts could help us match technologies to
markets, improve the research selection process, and speed up
implementation of research findings when such implementation is
warranted.
University Transportation Centers: Research and Human Resources
Since the late 1980s the Federal Government has devoted a portion
of its funding for transportation to university transportation research
centers. Originally the federal program funded ten centers, one per
federal region, with center designation determined through a
competitive process involving peer review of proposals. In the ensuing
years, Congress has expanded the program several times, naming
additional centers but also requiring that after an initial funding
period, most centers must compete for continued designation. Currently
there are sixty centers, with 20 selected through competitive reviews
and 40 named in SAFETEA-LU. Centers fall under several classifications
with differing funding levels. Most centers are required to secure a
dollar-for-dollar ``match'' for federal funds, and state DOTs and other
local transportation agencies are commonly called upon to provide this
match. USDOT's Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)
manages the program with a small but highly effective staff.
All of the UTCs conduct research. The UTCs also support university
transportation degree programs and offer continuing education,
conferences, and symposia to help practitioners stay abreast of new
methods and findings. However, the UTCs are a varied group, ranging
from top-ranked research universities to smaller regional or local
universities oriented principally toward education and training. The
UTCs' emphases and work products likewise vary.
Most UTCs carry out a mixed portfolio of research projects, ranging
from basic, exploratory research to highly applied projects. Each
center has a strategic plan that outlines the areas in which it will
concentrate. Most centers also refer researchers to the USDOT strategic
plan and similar documents that identify research needs and project
ideas. For most UTCs, however, the required ``match'' has a strong
influence on the projects selected, since State and local agencies
often will fund only those projects that they view as meeting their
pressing, short-term information and training needs.
California UTCs have been somewhat of an exception. California UTCs
have had the benefit of a generous match guarantee since the start of
the UTC program, with Caltrans staff participating in peer review of
research proposals but not directing research selection. Most other
centers have had less flexible arrangements and as a result do a higher
share of short-term, applied projects than the California UTCs.
California has had the ability to provide the UTCs this match and
allow them this flexibility because of the size of its transportation
program. However, with five UTCs now designated in the state and an
increasingly constrained transportation budget, the UTCs have become a
significant part of Caltrans' research expenditures and Caltrans is
feeling the squeeze on its funding. Smaller states are even harder
pressed for research funds and UTC match can eat up a large chunk of
available funds. Under these circumstances, the states understandably
want to see their funds used to meet their current need and are less
interested in longer-term, riskier research. Some are also concerned
that the growth of the UTC program amounts to de facto ``earmarking''
of State research funds that the they would otherwise use at their own
discretion.
The pressure for UTCs to show short-term payoffs in ways that are
relevant to current agency problems is substantial. Yet long-term,
researcher-initiated studies can pay off immensely. Since the start of
the UTC program, California UTC researchers have carried out
investigations on such topics as strategies for greenhouse gas
reduction, new fuels and new vehicle technologies, measurement and
control of particulate emissions from trucks, freight logistics,
management of traffic to and from ports, congestion pricing, parking
pricing, land use-transportation coordination, outcome-oriented
performance measures, and collaborative strategic planning processes
(to name just a few of the topics studied). Much of this work was
initiated well before there were federal or State transportation
policies or research programs on such matters. One result of this
investment in long-term, exploratory research--research that was NOT
clearly tied to existing public policies and programs--is that the
research itself has helped identify new ideas and directions. It has
given California a strong evidentiary basis for action and has inspired
new State legislation and new agency programs. As a result, California
is now positioned to lead implementation efforts in key policy arenas
that now are attracting national attention. The research might have
been risky, but it has given us a distinct advantage in information and
know-how.
At the same time, the UTC program has produced literally thousands
of graduates in transportation, at least some of whom would not have
entered the field had UTC-funded fellowships and research appointments
not been available. Many of the graduates from early days are now in
positions of leadership and are helping to reshape transportation
policy and practice. This cadre of young transportation professionals
is an important product of every UTC program and their accomplishments
are a key measure of the program's productivity.
Indeed, a major way that UTCs disseminate research results--their
own, and others'--is to train graduate students, who then enter the
field armed with the latest methods and findings which they then
introduce into their workplaces.
The consequences of the proposal to change the UTC match ratio from
50-50 to 80-20 will depend on the specifics of implementation. If the
lowered match requirement is combined with a cap on federal funding for
the UTC program at or near existing levels, and the number of UTCs
stays the same or expands, both graduate student support and UTC
research output is likely to decline. The UTC projects that do get
funded are likely to be framed in longer-term, bigger picture terms,
and while riskier, more of these projects may be of lasting
consequence. In other words, less State funding may mean less pressure
for short-term applications. However, there will of necessity be fewer
projects, fewer graduate students supported, and as a result, a lower
level of infusion of new knowledge into the profession. Not all UTCs
will suffer, of course; the UTCs most successful at attracting funds
from the private sector and foundations will refocus their efforts.
Other UTCs will have to contract, and issues of public rather than
private interest might receive less attention than they do today.
Of course, states could choose to continue a research program much
as the one they are now funding through the UTCs, with consultants as
well as universities able to compete for the available funds. Competing
for these funds would allow UTCs to offset some of the reduced match
``hit'' on UTC funding levels.
If on the other hand Congress boosts the program funding to
maintain or increase the funds available to the UTC program, while
reducing non-federal match, a greater focus on national objectives and
on longer-term innovation in research could be possible.
Congressional decisions on whether to designate more UTCs or
endorse competition and peer review also will affect the quality and
the scope of the UTC program. Research universities have concluded,
based on the evidence, that competition and peer review are the best
ways to produce quality results. However, in the UTC program it also is
evident that earmarks have allowed some universities to develop
transportation programs that have successfully competed for funds in
later rounds. Building in an expectation of competition for all centers
after an initial period of designated support appears to work
reasonably well.
Finally, multiple year grants are important because they provide
the predictability that enables graduate programs and research programs
to mesh well. Sudden shifts in funding levels and expectations for
match could cause significant disruptions to graduate programs, as
could delays in reauthorization. Continuing the program as it stands
for at least a year (rather than shorter periods that don't match grant
cycles) is a preferable option to the difficult short-term
continuations we experienced before SAFETEA-LU was enacted.
Coordination of Research Initiatives
Practitioners and policy-makers often ask how we coordinate
research programs funded variously by the USDOT, other federal
agencies, the states, foundations and other nonprofits, and the private
sector. The USDOT's Research and Innovative Technology Administration
(RITA) has provided leadership in this regard. The USDOT's strategic
plan provides a framework for priority-setting in research, and USDOT
and RITA help insure that there is a basic level of information on DOT
activities both by making information on the department's research
initiatives available on the web and by organizing and by reporting on
collaborations with other departments of the Federal Government (http:/
/www.rita.dot.gov/about-rita/). On-line publication of
research results and abstracts in journals and on university websites
and academic/practitioner conferences such as the annual Transportation
Research Board meeting are also important ways to share information.
However, there is more to be done. Compared to the EU and other
economically advanced countries, the USDOT's strategic plan is narrowly
framed; for example, there is no clear mention of global warming or
many other environmental issues, and such matters as transportation's
role in economic development, in social equity, and in quality of life
are not given much attention. Further, the scope of the USDOT's
collaborations with other federal agencies is quite limited and appears
to be narrower in some cases than Congress apparently contemplated
(e.g., in the Congressionally-requested Transportation Environmental
Research Program, which was recommended as a collaboration with other
agencies, states, and the private sector, but was instead instituted as
a program within FHWA). U.S. research, development, and implementation
practices also are narrower than those of other countries such as
Canada, Australia, or the UK, where strong linkages have been forged
among transportation, housing, and economic development planning, and
among water, waste disposal, communications and transportation
infrastructure investments.
A big worry for many public agencies is that research will be
duplicative. However, a distinction needs to be made between
intentional replication and unintentional duplication. Research is
often replicated intentionally, or conducted with a series of test
conditions, to determine whether the results are robust and
generalizable, and not just a fluke or limited to a specific case. Such
replication is highly desirable because it reduces risk and builds
confidence in research findings. On the other hand, research is
published in journals so that other researchers can discover and
evaluate what has been found in previous studies, and avoid
unintentional duplication. If the latter occurs, the researcher has not
done his or her job well--it is this sort of uninformed duplication
that should be avoided.
University researchers are evaluated by their peers not only on the
quantity they produce but also on the intellectual content of the
products, asking what's new and innovative, what new insights were
generated, what linkages were identified that were previously
overlooked, what changed in research directions or in theory, method,
policy, or practice as a result of the work. These are outcome
measures.
In contrast, many transportation agencies evaluate the research
they fund only on output measures (e.g., the main evaluation criteria
are whether required products were produced on time and on budget, not
whether the projects produced new knowledge, altered practice, or
improved conditions). The same is true, of course, for most on-the-
ground transportation projects: they are evaluated on design compliance
and whether they are on time or on budget much more often than they are
graded on whether they actually improved services, the economy, or
quality of life. Changing evaluation expectations from output-focused
to outcome-focused could significantly improve the results for all of
us, in both spheres of activity.
One of the problems with evaluating based on outcomes is that if
negative outcomes automatically mean failure, embarrassment, and
potential job loss, no one will want to admit to a negative outcome.
Yet we know that most new products never reach market and only a
fraction of those that do are true successes. The private sector knows
this, and so does academia: ideas that are proven wrong and proposals
that fail are nevertheless valuable products for researchers.
``Failed'' research efforts can lay the foundation for future research,
push it in new directions, suggest alternative applications for the
failed product, and highlight challenges to innovation. These are
valuable lessons, not embarrassments (Zhang and Sternberg, 2006).
Creating an environment where risks can be taken, failures assessed
fairly, and rewards given when due has been hard for the public sector.
This may be a reason to rely more on private sector organizations and
to give academics more independence, and more responsibility, for R&D.
Risks and responsibilities are also reasons to promote competition and
peer review; it shares the risk and responsibility for both research
initiation and research evaluation among a number of experts.
Implications: Improving Technology Transfer and Incorporating Research
Findings into Transportation Investment Policy
Our research speaks to the need to complement technological R&D
with research and development in the fields of economics and finance,
markets and consumers, law and institutions, planning and policy-
making. This is true with regard not only to the latest ITS
technologies but more generally to all investments in transportation
and other infrastructure.
A new USDOT strategic plan may be a way to organize these efforts.
Work conducted last year as part of a study on how to respond more
effectively to California's growth proposed the establishment of a new
strategic planning process whose goals would be faster and more cost-
effective delivery of infrastructure, better management of existing
facilities and services, better value for money invested, greater
accountability to customers, and the possibility of attracting private
capital for infrastructure projects (Dowall and Reid, 2008). The
strategic planning process would be focused on outcome-oriented
measures such as quality of service and how they are valued by
customers rather than on inputs, e.g., how to allocate categories of
funds. The process would involve creating a vision of the future and
the investments needed to attain that future; evaluating a broad set of
alternatives including both capital projects and ``soft'' investments
such as regulation or pricing in deciding what infrastructure is
needed; determining the best way to deliver needed projects--direct
public or private provision, contracting, partnerships; and providing
technical assistance to State agencies and local governments ranging
from opportunities for bundling demand to information on best
practices. Linkages modes (air, rail, highway . . .) and across fields
(transportation, energy, housing, agricultural lands, environmental
quality . . .) would be made explicit and tradeoffs examined.
Priorities for investment would be identified.
Such a process, which is being pioneered in several Canadian
provinces as well as in a few U.S. states, could not only improve
transportation investments but could help governments determine how to
allocate scarce resources more effectively. State plans of similar
scope are being developed and could greatly improve State and local
priority setting, investment decision-making, and partnership
opportunities.
References
E. Deakin et al. Mainstreaming Intelligent Transportation Systems,
Final Report to the California Dept. of Transportation, Nov.
2002; also see E. Deakin, Mainstreaming Intelligent
Transportation Systems, UCTC Report 790, Fall 2006 (book
chapter reprint).
E. Deakin, K. Frick, and A. Skabardonis, The Role of Technology in
Future Transportation. ACCESS 34: Spring 2009 (forthcoming).
D. Dowall and R. Reid, A Strategy for Infrastructure: The California
Infrastructure Initiative. ACCESS 32: Spring 2008.
Zhang, Li-Fang and Robert J. Sternberg (2006). The Nature of
Intellectual Styles. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Biography for Elizabeth Deakin
Elizabeth Deakin is Professor of City and Regional Planning at UC-
Berkeley, where she also is an affiliated faculty member of the Energy
and Resources Group and the Master of Urban Design group. She is
completing her second five-year term as Director of the UC
Transportation Center this spring. She formerly served as Co-Director
of UC-Berkeley's new Global Metropolitan Studies Initiative, which
involves nearly 70 faculty members from 12 departments. Before heading
up UCTC, she was Acting Director of the UC Institute of Urban and
Regional Development.
Deakin's research focuses on transportation and land use policy,
the environmental impacts of transportation, and equity in
transportation. She has published over 200 articles, book chapters, and
reports on topics ranging from environmental justice to transportation
pricing to development exactions and impact fees. She currently is
carrying out research on sustainable development policy in China, Latin
America, the EU, and the U.S., with funding from the China Energy
Foundation, the World Bank, the World Resources Institute, the USDOT,
and Caltrans.
Deakin has been appointed to a number of government posts including
city and county commissions and State advisory boards. She has taught
courses at universities in Australia, Germany, Sweden, France, and
China and has served as an adviser to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, the European Council of Ministers of
Transport, the World Bank, and MISTRA (the Swedish sustainable
development foundation). She chaired the NAS/TRB committee mandated by
Congress on transportation environmental research.
Deakin holds degrees in political science and transportation
systems analysis from MIT as well as a law degree from Boston College.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Dr. Deakin.
Mr. Saenz, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MR. AMADEO SAENZ, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Saenz. Good morning. Chair Wu, Members of the Science
and Technology Committee, thank you very much for the
opportunity to participate in this hearing. My name is Amadeo
Saenz. I am the Executive Director of the Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT). Today I would like to accomplish
several things with my testimony.
First, I would like to give you a State perspective on
federal research investment. I would also like to talk about
the barriers that we face, some of the stakeholder involvement
in transportation research and development, and finally, I
would like to list some possible improvements that could make
research and development more helpful.
Federal investment in transportation research and
development is invaluable to the State DOTs. Because of the
federal research we now have high-performance concrete, high-
performance steel, and accelerated bridge construction methods.
In Texas our highways are based on design criteria developed
through the national--through national research.
We now use cable barrier systems developed through the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. These barriers
have reduced crash severity in our highways, and this
translates to countless lives saved. We installed, as part of a
safety program, over 400 miles of cable barrier two years ago.
We went back to evaluate those particular highways, and we saw
that we were able to save 18 lives over that one year and 26
serious accidents from what it was prior. So measuring what you
do and what you put in place is very important.
The Strategic Highway Research Program Concrete and
Structures Initiative is another federal program we found to be
very beneficial. The Texas Loretta Road Overpass in Houston was
the first project in the country to use high-performance
concrete throughout the bridge. The use of high-performance
concrete has allowed us to realize tremendous savings and
efficiency in the construction of our bridge structures across
the state. So far we think we estimate and we save about $10 to
$20 million a year in bridge construction.
In 2002, to demonstrate the impact of that research and
development has on Texas, on the Texas transportation system
safety and cost effectiveness, Texas DOT performed an analysis
of 21 of over 200 improved technologies that had been developed
through our research program. A benefit period of ten years was
used to determine what kind of returns we were going to get,
and the findings showed that the products provided a net return
of our investment of over five to one. We currently have the
Texas Transportation Institute updating our report because we
now have more data on it, and preliminary indications are that
the original five to one investment is still a good number.
These are just a few samples of the benefits that we have
been able to realize from the transportation research and
development, but like with every other government program there
are some barriers. The competing challenges of relentless
congestion, lack of adequate funds, and the need to move people
and goods across towns, across the--and across the country with
really--I am sorry. Excuse me. The competing challenges of
relentless congestion, lack of adequate funds, and the need to
move people and goods across town and across the country demand
that we generate answers very quickly. We need to anticipate
future needs and begin research today to address those needs.
One of the largest barriers to overcome in research and
development is to overcome the institutional inertia and
resistance to change. When we entered these new specifications,
new standards, or construction techniques, we saw that there is
contractor resistance, and there are also cost increases
because of the unknown. There are implementing--therefore,
implementing research becomes difficult due to staffing and
funding shortages. And with the uncertain economy that we have
today, the State resources are stretched just by maintaining
our existing systems, and sometimes research has to take a back
seat.
At TxDOT all levels of employees are involved in the
research and development program. For example, we have set in
place research management committees. These committees are made
up of key administrative and key lead people, district
engineers, that work hand in hand with researchers who have the
technical expertise in the different areas. This committee has
established the priorities and selects the research that is to
be conducted. We have more employees involved in each of the
projects from within the Department to ensure that they work
hand in hand with the researchers, to ensure that everything
stays on track and will result in information that TxDOT can
use as part of the research program.
In addition, the Department has also seen very important to
set aside money to be able to implement some of the research
findings that come out of our research program, and we put in
place a $5 million a year budget amount to be able to address,
to implement these new technologies that come out of our
research program.
The Federal Government can help states, counties, and
cities with the use of the newest technologies in several ways.
One, first you need to understand what the needs of our states
are and what the needs of our local communities are.
Information, guidance requirements developed at the national
level should be provided in a ready-to-use format and in an
understandable language.
And we must also form partnerships between the federal,
State--federal and State DOTs to maximize and share all of our
information, our assets, and expertise. We need to all work
together instead of all working separately and independently
and reinventing the wheel every time.
Partnership is a major focus for us in Texas. We believe
that only through partnership and coordination we will be able
to meet our mission, and the same level of coordination and
focus would be helpful in all federal research programs.
As Congress looks to reauthorize the Nation's Surface
Transportation Program and the research that underpins it,
there are some simple but important changes that would
reenergize the research and would cost little or nothing,
little or very little to put in place. Not since President
Eisenhower have we had a national plan for infrastructure, and
if I have to guess, Congress is starting to think that we need
to have a new national plan. Our national plan should not only
be for highways, it should also include all modes of
transportation, whether it is mass transit, high-speed rail,
freight rail, aviation, and ports. We have to measure how well
we succeed or how much--by how much we have missed our goals.
We will need to move into measuring real congestion relief,
lasting cleaner impacts, safety improvements, and sustainable
maintenance programs. That way we know whether we got what we
expected from our research program.
If Congress is serious about making us perform, then a
well-organized research program can get us there. Congress
should set our goals and then the states and the Federal
Government should work in partnership to define what and how we
measure our success. We need to avoid developing systems
independent of each other as I mentioned because this leads to
additional cost. A nationally-coordinated approach worked well
for mapping the Genome Project, and it can certainly help us in
advancing our research program and the development of
transportation systems.
Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to provide this
testimony. I look forward to your questions and will be happy
to answer them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saenz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Amadeo Saenz, Jr.
Introduction
This testimony will provide the Committee on Science and Technology
with the State of Texas perspective on the federal research investment,
barriers we face, and stakeholder involvement in transportation
research and development. It will also address the impact to states and
possible improvements that might make the entire R&D endeavor more
useful.
At TxDOT we strive to be a progressive State transportation agency
that provides safe, cost-effective, efficient, environmentally
sensitive and aesthetically appealing transportation systems to the
citizens of Texas.
Federal Investment
The federal investment in research and development has impacted
transportation practices and investments in many positive ways. First,
the federally funded national programs are the basis for the
development of national, State and local operating processes, standards
and specifications. These programs consolidate information and
experience from around the United States and produce usable
documentations for new methods. They also obtain results that might
otherwise take individual states decades to complete. Federal research
and development has brought the transportation industry high
performance concrete, high performance steel and accelerated bridge
construction, which have significantly improved the efficiency and the
durability of bridges. These, of course, are not the only examples.
In Texas, the safety devices along all of our highways are based on
design criteria developed through national research. For example, the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350,
``Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of
Highway Features,'' has been used for selecting cable barrier systems.
The installation of these barriers on Texas highways has dramatically
reduced crash severity and saved several lives. NCHRP projects have
helped TxDOT in other programs as well, like the repair of prematurely
failing modular joints on bridges. If these systems are poorly
designed, specified or installed, which had happened previously due to
a lack of national specifications, they can under-perform and result in
costly bridge damage and premature replacement.
NCHRP has assisted Texas in many ways. It helps us provide secure
highway and bridge infrastructure by presenting the results and
findings that enable transportation professionals to deal with
emergency preparedness functions. The NCHRP reports also help TxDOT
identify and quantify environmental impacts in the earliest phases of
project planning, making that complex process more effective and
avoiding costly changes later. The research associated with new
regulatory requirements can address lawsuit findings and help
facilitate more efficient and effective environmental clearance and
improve project delivery.
Another great federal program example is the Strategic Highway
Research Program (SHRP) Concrete and Structures initiative, which
promoted the interchange of ideas and information among representatives
of Federal, State and local government agencies; the construction
industry; and the academic community, an effort which provided High
Performance Concrete (HPC). The Texas Louetta Road Overpass in Houston
was underway and was the first highway bridge construction project in
the United States to use HPC throughout the bridge.
Additional benefits from SHRP continue today. The current Superpave
asphalt binder specifications that the Nation uses today were developed
through the initial SHRP. For example, Expert Task Groups, or ETGs, for
binders and mixtures that were originally organized for implementing
Superpave still function to research changes needed in testing and
specifications that were not adequately addressed during the original
funding for SHRP. The FHWA formed a working group for the
implementation of the Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide that
is being developed to replace the existing American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design guides. The
end product should improve the accuracy and reliability of pavement
design in the United States. An ETG for pavement models was organized
to evaluate prediction models including fundamental properties to
predict pavement performance. This Long-Term Pavement Performance
project was used to develop the new pavement design guide and provided
several valuable lessons from the Special Pavement Sections. FHWA also
uses ETGs to evaluate the measurement of pavement performance
characteristics such as smoothness, rutting and cracking with goals to
standardize the practices of calibration and data collection.
TxDOT has built a very robust research program funded through the
federal State Planning and Research Program involving many of the Texas
universities. We perform research in areas such as pavements,
materials, construction, planning, environment, right of way, public
transportation, operations, safety, hydraulics and structures. Some of
our recently completed research projects are:
The Role of Preferential Treatment for Carpools in
Managed Lane Facilities, which involved a review of carpool
preferences on managed and tolled lanes; a stated-preference
survey of HOV lane users with respect to carpool preferences
relative to price; development of a predictive demand model;
and an assessment of mobility, revenue and environmental
impacts.
Impacts of Current and Future Demographic Trends on
Transportation Planning in Texas. One of the deliverables from
this project was a One-Stop Demographic Data Analysis Tool,
which will provide a starting point for reporting and comparing
demographic characteristics of selected areas for
transportation professionals.
Synthesis Study of Programs Used to Reduce the Need
for Inspection Personnel. TxDOT is looking for more effective
ways to manage the workload involved in construction project
testing and inspection. This project identified strategies that
could help TxDOT do this while maintaining quality.
Development of An Advanced Overlay Design System
Incorporating Both Rutting and Reflection Cracking
Requirements. TxDOT spends millions of dollars each year
designing and placing overlay on its existing highways. The
tools developed in this study will assist TxDOT engineers in
designing and implementing longer lasting overlays. The
software can address issues such as where to use high-
performance mixes and optimal thicknesses, particularly in the
area of jointed concrete pavements where joints must be
repaired prior to placing any overlay.
A January 2003 TxDOT report titled ``The Value of Texas
Transportation Research'' stated the following:
``To demonstrate the impact that research has on
transportation system safety and cost effectiveness, 21
improved technologies and methods produced by TxDOT's research
program were selected from a three-year period, 1999 through
2001. The selected products are considered to be among the best
of over 200 beneficial initiatives implemented from those three
years of the research program. A benefit period of ten years
was used for determining the returns from the selected research
program products. This is a conservative assumption, since many
benefits never become truly obsolete as newer technology is
layered on earlier innovation.''
``The estimated ten-year cost savings in department
operations, stemming from these 21 research products, are more
than $322 million. The research program budget total for fiscal
years 1999, 2000, and 2001 was approximately $54 million (less
than 0.4 percent of the department's budget). The total
operational cost savings derived from these 21 products exceed
the cost of the research program by approximately $268 million.
This is a net return on investment ratio of 5:1, without
considering the value of the numerous other products
implemented from that three-year period of the research
program.''
This report is currently being updated by the Texas Transportation
Institute. However, preliminary indications are that the original
findings remain valid.
Research and Development Barriers
The competing challenges of relentless congestion, lack of adequate
funds and the need to move people and goods across town and across the
country demand that we generate answers quickly. In some instances, we
need the answers today--so we cannot wait on a research question to be
posed with answers to be presented two years down the road. The public
expects the best transportation system at the lowest cost, and research
facilitates this but we have to do a better job of anticipating our
questions and issues. We must begin research now so we have the answers
available when tomorrow comes.
A key barrier we have to overcome is institutional inertia and
resistance to change based on rational aversion to risk. Contractors in
Texas, as in other states, are used to standards and consistency, so
when we introduce new specifications, standards or construction
techniques, resistance and cost increase is certain. Another barrier to
implementing research is quite simply staffing and funding shortages.
As you know, there is a cost to implementation and changeover to a new
technology. With reduced budgets today and our uncertain economy, our
resources are already stretched in our ability to just maintain our
existing systems.
Some other barriers include failure to get useful information to
decision-makers, reluctance by some to embrace advanced technologies
(perhaps due to lack of understanding), lack of clarity or
understanding of potential benefits, and unavailability of
specifications. Some research outcomes may have to be validated by
environmental regulatory agencies and go through rule making by
multiple regulatory agencies before being implemented (for example,
alternative mitigation strategies that research has shown to be
superior to earlier practice). This barrier is exasperated by the
chronic shortage of staff in the federal regulatory agencies.
Proprietary issues continue to hinder implementation. Frequently,
successful research must be converted to hardware, software or new
materials by vendors before it can actually be effectively used.
Sometimes we must wait to implement a research result until we have
enough vendors for competitive bidding. Manufacturers are often
reluctant to add new features or applications that resulted from
research. Another potential obstacle is that there must be agreement on
the limits of the use of data available from the new technology (i.e.,
electronic tolling).
The Federal Government can help states, counties and cities use the
newest available technologies in several ways. First, there must be an
understanding at the federal level of State and local issues and needs.
It's a long way from Washington, D.C. to Austin, Texas, and things can
get lost in translation. Information, guidance and requirements
developed at the national level should be based, where necessary, on
sound research. This information should then be provided in clear,
``ready to use'' format and language. Distributing reports that are
unread and put on the shelf or stored on the Internet is not the
answer. Research results need to be communicated at all levels.
Professionals and first-tier government decision-makers must share the
details of research results and agree on standard processes and
methods; i.e., safety related road design, clearance zones and access
management. Transportation department regional and discipline
specialist leaders must agree with local leaders on the value of, and
the resources for, implementing research results; i.e., real-time
monitoring at Traffic Management Centers. Senior transportation leaders
and elected or appointed officials must ask for and then implement
research on major requirements; i.e., alternative funding methods,
linking planning with the National Environmental Policy Act, global
warming and greenhouse gases. The Federal Government can assist in
developing specifications and standards. Perhaps funding more
demonstration projects highlighting technologies with potential big
pay-off could also help.
At TxDOT, we have made some changes in policy to assist in
overcoming some of these barriers. For example, deliverables required
on some TxDOT research projects include a specification, standard, or
``manual pages'' in the proper format ready to insert into our
documents. This makes it easier and quicker to implement the results.
Some research project results are such that a formal implementation
project is developed. An implementation project is typically triggered
by the need for specific funding to help integrate a product, new
method or process, or innovation into department operations. Examples
include:
The incremental cost for the first use of a product
or innovation in construction or maintenance operations.
The purchase of newly developed equipment for use in
the field.
Training of field personnel in the use of new
equipment or methods.
Training is also a significant tool for ensuring that planning and
construction use the newest available technologies. Universities must
also maintain strong research programs to attract high quality students
to continue graduate level study. Continuing research progress must be
matched with money, resources and materials to understand and implement
new technologies. Basic and continuing education and technical skills
training at multiple levels is needed equitably across the country. In
Texas, for example, over 300 department employees have been trained in
the past 18 months on research project specific best practices and
implementations. Topic areas include Wireline Communication Design,
PASSER V Signal Optimization, Dynamic Message Signs, Managed Lanes,
Measuring Access to Public Transportation, Procedures for Setting Curve
Advisory Speeds and Spall Repair.
Recently, the research project on Transversely Varying Asphalt
Rates has been added as a course that will be available to the
department employees in March 2009. We have also partnered with the
National Highway Institute and the Transportation Curriculum
Coordinating Committee (TCCC) to place all new TCCC Web-based training
on the department's Learning Content Management System. This allows
immediate access to these new courses in a secure environment for
department employees. We are involved with the Texas Pavement
Preservation Center, a collaborative association with the department,
Center for Transportation Research, the Texas Transportation Institute
and private industry, and have developed a series of training courses
that are delivered on an established schedule to department employees
and private industry. Over 400 employees have been trained on best
practices in asphalt preservation methodology and design in the past 15
months.
The department is a firm believer in the use of technology not only
in application in the design, build and maintenance of roadways, but
also in the delivery of training and access of the latest cutting-edge
technologies for its employees. The department has an extensive video
teleconferencing system that has been in place since 2002. In FY08
alone, TxDOT used over 8,700 hours of connectivity to delivery
training. TxDOT's Learning Content Management System now hosts over 400
course titles and is used by every employee for a variety of courses
and access to resources. The Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP)
is also a valuable program for assisting cities and counties with
technical issues and training. Some of the specifics of the LTAP in
Texas include:
Distributing technology transfer materials (videos,
CDs and publications) to local government officials upon
request.
Providing technical information, advice and guidance
upon request of local agencies.
Conducting or arranging seminars or training courses
including Bridge Maintenance, Road Maintenance, Culverts and
Drainage, Vegetation Control/Herbicide Use and Using a
Motorgrader to Shape Gravel Roads.
Stakeholder Involvement
Lastly, we believe the current level of stakeholder involvement in
determining DOT RD&T priorities at the federal level is sufficient but
needs improvement. The stakeholders included at the federal level, for
example, are FHWA, RITA, TRB, State DOTs, local agencies, highway
industry and highway users. But sheer volume does not necessarily mean
that the programs and priorities are well coordinated and focused. As a
result, we have unnecessary duplication, significant research gaps and
increased difficulty in sharing results that can be used across the
country. The challenge is big. All 50 states are conducting their own
research. In addition, RITA, TRB and the FHWA have numerous research
programs (for example, NCHRP, SHRP 2, and STEP). Some possibilities for
improvement include:
Defining the roles and ``boundaries'' of the various
programs more clearly. It should be much clearer at the federal
level how the ``pieces of the puzzle'' fit together. For
example, how does the research conducted by RITA relate to the
research conducted by FHWA? Is there duplication? Are there
gaps? How and where does one see how this ``puzzle'' fits
together?
The goals and focus areas of the multitude of
research programs at the federal level should be clearly and
succinctly outlined, put in the same format for easy comparison
and kept current in one electronic document. In essence, ``What
is everyone doing and where do I find it?''
Focus the coordination efforts so that the right
stakeholders are involved in the right programs. More
importantly, ensure that the ``products'' resulting from these
stakeholder meetings and interactions are specific, meaningful
and measurable. Too often, many groups at all levels meet to
develop research agendas. The problem occurs when there is no
accountability and no follow-up.
The National Vision and Transportation Research
As Congress looks to reauthorize the Nation's surface
transportation program and the research that underpins it, some simple
but important changes would not only re-energize that research but
would cost little or nothing to do.
As we look forward to the 2009 authorization cycle, Congress should
define a national strategy and provide the policy framework that
empowers states and regions to set goals, make decisions and deliver
projects that implement the national strategy. Not since President
Eisenhower have we had a national plan for infrastructure, and if I had
to guess, Congress is starting to we think should have one, too.
Our national plan should not only be for highways. It must include
all modes of transportation: mass transit, high-speed rail, freight
rail, aviation and ports. Congress should enact consumer-focused
legislation and recognize that Americans expect congestion relief,
cleaner air, improved economic opportunity, well maintained roads and
increased safety.
And we're going to have to measure how well we have succeeded, or
occasionally, how spectacularly we have failed. In the stimulus
legislation that's presently under consideration, a good portion of the
discussion is on measuring results. Right now it tends to be about the
number of jobs created, which is good, but we're going to need to move
into measuring real congestion relief, lasting clean air impacts,
safety improvements and sustainable maintenance programs. That way we
can know if we get what we expected to get out of our transportation
investments, a level of thinking that is absent these days.
The national research program to some degree mimics the
transportation plan we have today. There's little central coordination
or vision, everyone's off doing their own thing with inadequate funding
and we generally do nothing more than follow processes. When we spend a
federal dollar, the question we're asked isn't ``Did you relieve
congestion?'' but rather ``Did you follow all of the processes?'' If we
happened to actually accomplish something, then we got lucky.
If Congress is serious about making us perform (and I hope it is),
then a well organized national research program can get us there. It
can define what we measure and how to best measure it. I think it could
also develop the software to do it so we we're not all developing
systems independent of each other at a tremendous cost or buying it
from different vendors at an equally high cost.
A nationally coordinated approach worked for mapping the human
genome project, and it can work for mapping the next advances in our
transportation system.
Biography for Amadeo Saenz, Jr.
Amadeo Saenz Jr., P.E., is Executive Director of the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT). Under Texas Transportation
Commission direction, he manages, directs, and implements TxDOT
policies, programs, and operating strategies. He represents TxDOT
before the Texas Legislature, the United States Congress and other
entities. He was appointed as Executive Director of TxDOT in 2007. Mr.
Saenz is a trailblazer in transportation and was the first Hispanic to
hold this position in the agency's 90-year history.
After earning a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering
(with honors) at the University of Texas at Austin, Mr. Saenz joined
TxDOT in 1978 in the Pharr District as an engineering laboratory
assistant. As a TxDOT employee he succeeded through various positions
to learn the agency and transportation from beginning to end.
He was named district engineer in the Pharr District in 1993 and
held this position until 2001 when he was appointed as Assistant
Executive Director for Engineering Operations in Austin. In this role,
he implemented and managed TxDOT's engineering operations policies,
programs and operating strategies according to federal and State laws
and Texas Transportation Commission regulations and directives.
A native of Hebbronville, Texas, Saenz is a past member of the
Rotary Club and was active with the Boy Scouts. He served on the Civil
Engineering External Advisory Committee for the University of Texas at
Austin. He owns and operates a small cattle ranch in South Texas, where
he enjoys horseback riding and hunting. Mr. Saenz and his wife,
Geraldine, have two children, Priscilla Marie and David Aaron.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Saenz.
Mr. Skinner, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Mr. Skinner. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the
Committee. My name is Robert Skinner, and I am the Executive
Director of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the
National Academies. My testimony this morning is based upon the
work of expert committees appointed by the National Academies
to carry out projects for the Federal Highway Administration's
(FHWA) Research and Technology Programs and for the Research
and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). I emphasize
highway research programs in my testimony, but most of the
lessons drawn are applicable and transferable to research in
other modes.
The administration of our highway system is incredibly
decentralized with tens of thousands of states and local
governments owning pieces of the system. Even though the
Federal Government owns and operates relatively few highways,
it plays a crucial role in research and the innovation process.
The Federal Government funds about two-thirds of the total
Highway Research and Technology Program, enables training and
technology transfer activities, and is the sole source of
funding for higher-risk, potentially higher-payoff research.
Now let me turn to the questions provided in advance and
highlight some of the points that are made in my written
testimony. The first question referred to R&D priorities,
alignment with stakeholders, and changing priorities. The TRB
committee that reviewed RITA's first five-year DOT-wide
strategic plan identified several constraints on having a truly
strategic plan.
The research title of SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users) contains numerous, narrowly-defined designations, and
many R&D activities are earmarked to specific recipients. As a
practical matter, most of the needed research identified by
stakeholders is mode-specific in character. Finally, the
ability for USDOT to direct or control research programs from a
top-down perspective is in a natural tension with efforts of
the modal administrations to be responsive with stakeholders.
Given the decentralized administration of the system,
responsiveness to stakeholder needs and perspectives is
crucial. FHWA may have the most extensive interactions with
stakeholders of the modal administrations but even it could be
doing more.
Regarding changing priorities, the research proposals for
reauthorization that the TRB Executive Committee looked at last
spring did not adequately recognize the growing importance of
reducing transportation greenhouse gas emissions and energy
consumption. TRB now has a study underway that will make
recommendations before SAFETEA-LU expires regarding research on
climate change mitigation and adaptation.
The second question concerns improvements to transportation
R&D investment structure. In concept, the portfolio of programs
funded through SAFETEA-LU is appropriate, but the program, as
authorized, is far more detailed than necessary. Compare that
to NSF (National Science Foundation), which has a budget that
is 10 to 15 times greater with fewer line items.
Other weaknesses in the structure include: too small a
share of the funding is devoted to advanced or longer-term,
higher-risk research; policy research is neglected; there is
too little emphasis on data collection; and inadequate
attention to technology transfer.
The third question, in fact, addresses improvements to the
technology transfer programs. FHWA provides extensive
information about new technologies and practices, administers
the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), and offers
training on new technologies and practices. These activities,
however, are not sufficient to fully overcome the significant
barriers to innovation that exist.
Our recently-released report on implementing the results
from the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) provides a
model of what is required to assist the states in deploying new
technologies and practices. For SHRP products the committee
recommends a large-scale implementation effort totaling $400
million over six years. It would be guided by a formal
stakeholder advisory committee and detailed, publicly-available
implementation plans.
The final question asked about lessons learned from the
last reauthorization, excuse me, the final question asked about
lessons learned from the last reauthorization of Surface
Transportation Programs. The principles for research
articulated in the preamble to Title V are good ones, and I
hope they will be retained, and more importantly, followed.
They encourage stakeholder involvement, competitive award of
funding based upon merit review, advanced research, and a
federal program that spans the entire innovation process.
Along with fewer, more-broadly defined line items,
adherence to these principles would restore funding to policy
and other core missions, including enhanced technology
transfer, and provide flexibility needed to respond to changing
needs. Specific recommendations based on our assessment of
SAFETEA-LU's Title V are included in my written testimony.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the
Committee. I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Skinner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert E. Skinner, Jr.
INTRODUCTION
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
Robert E. Skinner, Jr. I am the Executive Director of the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies. TRB is
one of the five divisions of the National Research Council (NRC),
which, in turn, is the operating arm of the National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine. This complex of organizations is collectively referred to as
the National Academies. The institution operates under the charter
given to the National Academy of Sciences by Congress in 1863 to advise
the government on matters of science and technology.
From the 1920s until 1975, my organization was named the Highway
Research Board. In 1975 the organization became multi-modal and was
renamed the Transportation Research Board. TRB's mission is to promote
innovation and progress in transportation through research. It is best
known for its role in promoting innovation and information exchange by
maintaining approximately 200 standing technical committees in all
modes of transportation and hosting an Annual Meeting that attracts
more than 10,000 participants from the United States and around the
world. TRB also conducts policy studies for Congress and the executive
branch, and is increasingly called upon to administer research programs
for others that are stakeholder-directed and primarily award research
funding based on competition and merit review by peers.
The testimony I will give today is based upon the work of expert
committees, appointed by the NRC, and serving without compensation to
carry out projects for the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
research and technology programs and the Research and Innovative
Technology Administration (RITA). I have cited these different reports
throughout my testimony, and they are listed at the end of this
document.
We also have committees at work reviewing the research programs of
the Federal Railroad and Federal Transit Administrations, and TRB
manages cooperative research programs for transit agencies and
airports. I have not addressed these modes in my written testimony in
any detail but will be happy to comment on these activities if
requested. I emphasize highway research programs in my testimony, but
most of the lessons drawn are applicable and transferable to research
in other modes.
Importance of Highways
The American lifestyle is absolutely dependent on highway
transportation. Americans use personal vehicles for 87 percent of daily
trips and 90 percent of long distance trips. The decentralized U.S.
economy would be unimaginable without the access that highways provide
for motor carriers. Truck ton-miles represent about 30 percent of total
ton-miles of freight; more importantly that tonnage accounts for nearly
75 percent of the value of freight shipped domestically.
With the fourth largest land area of any country, the United States
is surely the most reliant upon roads and highways. The Nation has 8.4
million lane miles (3.2 million miles) of roads connecting metropolitan
areas, towns, and counties across the country to serve its 300 million
residents and seven million business establishments.
As valuable and important as highway transportation is, it also
faces enormous challenges. For example, demand on the system increased
sharply in recent years resulting in the congestion we have become all
too familiar with. Total highway travel in personal vehicles,
motorcycles, light and heavy trucks totals nearly three trillion miles
annually. Total travel has leveled off in the last couple of years, but
it increased 25 percent between 1997 and 2006. Not only is much of the
highway system reaching or exceeding its expected service life, it is
also carrying a much heavier burden than expected. The amount of
traffic on rural Interstates more than doubled between 1970 and 2005,
but the loadings placed on those highways, due largely to more trucks
traveling more miles, increased six-fold during that period. The system
is facing unprecedented challenges in overall demand, safety, the cost
of paying for system preservation and operation, and environmental
impact. Because there is not enough money to meet all these challenges,
research and innovation is desperately needed. For example, we must
learn how to reconstruct highways more efficiently at lower cost and do
so while continuing to maintain service with minimal disruptions. We
must also strive to meet ever-higher standards for providing capacity
with minimal disruption to communities and the environment.
AN OVERVIEW OF U.S. HIGHWAY RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
Decentralized Responsibilities
Highway research, like the management of the highway system itself,
is highly decentralized, and appropriately so. Roads and highways are
owned and operated by the states, thousands of counties, and tens of
thousands of cities and municipalities. These many and varied
organizations make all the key decisions about investment, operation,
and preservation of roads. Aside from the roads on federal lands, the
Federal Government has little direct connection with the pressures of
financing, building, maintaining, and operating roads. Doing so is a
massive enterprise. Roughly $94 billion is spent every year on roads
and highways.
Each state has its own highway research program, and states, in
turn are providers of technology and innovation to cities, counties,
and municipalities. States' R&T programs often provide the final step
in implementing new technologies, and they must meet the particular
needs of individual states' soil conditions, climate, and institutional
arrangements. Pavement design itself, for example, is highly dependent
upon local soil conditions, moisture levels, temperature ranges, and
sources of local aggregate. Operational needs range widely between
states with major metropolitan areas and states mostly made up of rural
areas. State policy concerns about economic development, finance,
environmental issues, and safety also vary considerably across states.
State research programs support research initiatives in all these
areas.
The existence of 52 programs might suggest that duplication would
occur, but, in fact, states have a system of sharing resources in order
to study topics of collective interest, and the states and federal
transportation agencies, through TRB, maintain a database of completed
research and research in progress, which states are required by FHWA to
consult before initiating new projects. State highway research programs
are mostly funded through federal aid. For decades, the federal aid
title of surface transportation authorization (Title I) has required
states to spend a small percentage of federal aid on planning and
research. (The State Planning and Research (SP&R) program currently
sets aside two percent of selected highway program funding of which 25
percent must be spent on research.) States pool some of their resources
in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is
managed by TRB on the states' behalf, as described in more detail
below.
Federal Role
Even though the Federal Government has a minor role in owning and
operating highways, it plays a virtually indispensable role in the
research and innovation process. The Federal Government funds about
two-thirds of total highway research and technology programs (Table 1),
plays a critical role in training and technology transfer, and is the
sole source of funding for higher-risk, potentially higher-pay off
research.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the principal agency
managing highway research at USDOT. It has research activities in each
of its mission-area responsibilities: infrastructure, operations,
environment and planning, safety, and policy. Through its research and
program office staff in these areas, FHWA interacts with experts and
stakeholders in the public and private sectors to develop multi-year
program plans for their research and development activities.
The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) research program,
initiated and formerly managed by FHWA, is now managed by the Research
and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). The ITS program is
multi-modal, but most of the projects and funding are highway-related.
In addition, the University Transportation Centers (UTCs) conduct
highway research (generally with federal funding); this program is
administered by RITA. The UTC program is multi-modal, but 69 percent of
the projects in 2008 were focused on highway topics,\1\ hence I have
included it as part of the federal investment in highway research.
Various private entities fund highway research, but their role is
surprisingly small.\2\ Because of the large public presence in roads
and highways and the nature of public procurement of highway goods and
services, there are relatively few opportunities for the private sector
to capitalize on private research. Consequently, the share of private
funding is small and the public responsibilities for encouraging
innovation are large.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006-2009: Strengths
and Weaknesses, Special Report 295, Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, p. 75.
\2\ Building Momentum for Change: Creating a Strategic Forum for
Innovation in Highway Infrastructure, Special Report 249,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C. 1996, p. 14-15. See also Chapter 6 of Implementing the Results of
the Second Strategic Highway Research Program: Saving Lives, Reducing
Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, Special Report 296,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C. 2009.
FHWA is closely connected to the states though its federal aid and
RD&T programs and has offices in each state. RITA, in addition to
administering the ITS and UTC programs, has a role in strategic RD&T
planning for the department. Because of the extent of earmarked
research and detailed designations of research programs in the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act of 2005
(SAFETEA-LU), about which I will say more later, RITA has had limited
opportunity to influence the scope and direction of highway
research.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Committee for the Review of the USDOT Strategic Plan for R&D,
Letter Report, August 2, 2006. http://www.trb.org/news/
blurb-detail.asp?id=6582
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal role of growing importance is the support for higher-
risk, potentially higher pay-off research. TRB has been administering
an NRC-appointed expert committee to provide guidance to the FHWA RD&T
program since 1992. The Research and Technology Coordinating Committee
(RTCC) has consistently encouraged FHWA to invest in this kind of
research.\5\ The vast majority of the highway research conducted in
this country is highly applied, problem-solving research, as it should
be. But no agency has been funding more exploratory research that is
seeking new understanding that could lead to new breakthroughs. The
Exploratory Advanced Research program authorized in SAFETEA-LU is an
example of this kind of research and a welcome change. In principle,
this kind of research should also be supported through UTC program, but
the dollar-for-dollar matching requirement of the UTC program has
driven this program to focus on applied research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology, Special
Report 261, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C. 2001.
Special Initiatives
Over the years stakeholders in the highway community have requested
special initiatives to meet special needs. Most of these initiatives
have been governed by stakeholders and funded with federal aid and rely
on competition and merit review to award contracts and grants.
AASHO Road Test and Long Term Pavement Performance
Experiment.
In the late 1950s an extensive series of tests was conducted for
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), then named the American Association of State Highway
Officials (AASHO), on a pavement test track. These tests established
the empirical relationships between pavement loadings and distress that
that became the basis of the first AASHTO pavement design guide issued
in 1961, which subsequently determined pavement designs in the United
States as well as influencing them around the world. TRB, then the
Highway Research Board, administered these tests for AASHO.
The AASHO road test, however, did not adequately account for
variations in soil conditions, materials, climate, and other factors
that influence pavement deterioration in addition to loadings. The
Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) experiment, begun 20 years ago,
and costing over $260 million in federal funding, will be nearly
completed this year. FHWA has managed the experiment in collaboration
with the states, which have invested at least double the federal share
in constructed pavements and data collection. An NRC-appointed
committee administered by TRB has advised FHWA and the states on the
conduct of this experiment. The data collected to date have already
been influential in implementing the new Mechanistic-Empirical Design
Guide being implemented by the states and will likely be as influential
in future pavement design as the AASHO road test.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program
In the late 1980s a broad-based public-private stakeholder group
known as Mobility 2000 began promoting the need to apply computer and
electronic communications technologies to increase the capacity and
safety of highways. The research and demonstration program that was
initially funded in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991, has since invested more than $1.2 billion in developing,
testing, and implementing ITS technologies. ITS America, an outgrowth
of Mobility 2000, was originally designated as the formal advisory body
for the program; RITA now has a designated ITS advisory committee for
this purpose.
Strategic Highway Research Programs (SHRP) 1 and 2.
Originally conceived by an NRC-appointed committee administered by
TRB, the first SHRP program was a fixed-duration $150 million research
effort focused on materials and maintenance practices that produced
significant breakthroughs in asphalt mix design procedures and winter
maintenance practices. FHWA, AASHTO, and TRB collaborated in the
development of detailed research plans. The program was authorized in
the 1987 surface transportation reauthorization legislation. A special
unit of the NRC was created to allow for stakeholders governance of the
program and convene expert panels to produce requests for proposals
(RFPs), provide merit review of the proposals, recommend selection of
contractors, and manage the contractors.
In the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Congress
requested that TRB convene another NRC-appointed committee to determine
the need for a second SHRP. A committee made up of leaders from the
highway community recommended an ambitious program to significantly
improve safety, provide capacity in greater harmony with community
values and the environment, improve travel time reliability, and renew
highway capacity more efficiently and effectively while under
traffic.\6\ SAFETEA-LU authorized a six-year, $205 million program for
this purpose. Under a three-way partnership with AASHTO, FHWA, and TRB,
the program is governed by stakeholders and administered by TRB.
Eighty-five percent of the research funds are awarded competitively
based on merit review by peers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion,
Improving Quality of Life, Special Report 260, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. 2000.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Since 1962, under a cooperative agreement among AASHTO, FHWA and
TRB, TRB has administered the NCHRP program. In this cooperative
program, the states select the topics to be studied through the
Standing Committee on Research of AASHTO. TRB then forms panels of
experts to issue RFPs, review proposals, select contractors, and
oversee the research. TRB administers similar programs for transit
agencies (Transit Cooperative Research Program, since 1991), and
airports (Airport Cooperative Research Program, since 2005).
Other Cooperative Research Programs
SAFETEA-LU authorized two relatively small-scale cooperative
programs that TRB administers for others. One program, recommended by
AASHTO, addresses intermodal freight research issues. Another pilot
program, recommended by an NRC-appointed committee convened at the
request of USDOT, addresses hazardous materials transportation.\7\ As
with other cooperative programs, stakeholders provide the governance
and TRB provides the administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Cooperative Research for Hazardous Materials Transportation,
Defining the Need, Converging on Solutions. Special Report 283.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2002, an NRC-appointed committee also recommended the creation
of a Surface Transportation Environment and Planning cooperative
research program.\8\ The committee that authored that report was
chaired by Betty Deakin, who is also invited to testify today. A key
concept behind this proposal was to bring the highway and environmental
communities together to govern a research program that would use the
best science and technology to address and resolve some of the
contentious issues and questions that separate these two
constituencies. SAFETEA-LU authorized such a program and left it to the
discretion of USDOT whether to manage it directly or have TRB form a
stakeholder committee to provide governance of the program. Partly due
to the funding constraints SAFETEA-LU imposed on USDOT, FHWA chose to
retain the program, which, nonetheless, does have an extensive outreach
component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Surface Transportation Environmental Research: A Long-term
Strategy. Special Report 268. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The structure of the highway research program appears complicated,
and it is. The genius of the design, however, is that the programs and
initiatives are structured for the most part so that they are close to
the various problems they are designed to address. In principle, the
various programs provide a portfolio that ranges from highly applied to
more exploratory research. In the view of many, the balance is not
quite right, and, for the amount of money being spent, there appear to
be far too many categories and far too little flexibility to shift
program priorities in response to new opportunities, such as
nanotechnology, or emerging needs, such as security and climate change.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM RECENT NRC REPORTS
Two NRC-appointed committees have recently completed reports that
address the questions posed by the committee. After summarizing the
main findings and recommendations of these reports, I respond to the
Committee's questions more directly.
Last November the NRC released the RTCC report entitled The Federal
Investment in Highway Research 2006-2009: Strengths and Weaknesses.
This report evaluates the federal highway RD&T programs in terms of the
principles for research that are articulated by Congress in the
introduction to Title V of SAFETEA-LU. Some of these principles are
based on recommendations made by the RTCC in is 2001 report, The
Federal Role in Highway Research. These principles address:
the scope of the federal RD&T program;
when federal investment is justified,
the content of the program, including fundamental,
long-term research; gap-filling research; and policy or
planning research;
stakeholder input;
awarding R&D funds primarily through competition and
peer, or merit, review; and
evaluation of research.
The main findings of the RTCC are as follows:
Despite the progress made in overall funding in
SAFETEA-LU, highway research programs are significantly under
funded compared with the level of R&D investment in private
industry. Public and private highway research is funded at only
25 percent of the level of industrial R&D in the United States
(0.9 percent of highway expenditures compared to 3.4 percent of
industrial sales).
The research programs funded in SAFETEA-LU meet the
Title V principles with these main exceptions:
Extensive earmarking (62 percent) of the University
Transportation (UTC) Program and additional earmarks
scattered across FHWA programs (equal to at least 18
percent of total funding) violate the SAFETEA-LU
principle of awarding research funds according to
competition and merit review.
The programs funded in SAFETEA-LU do not include all
the content areas Congress requested. Due to funding
constraints in Title V caused by a considerable number
of narrowly-designated programs and earmarking of more
programs than were authorized, FHWA was forced to cut
important areas of research in safety, operations,
planning and environment, and policy. Funding for
research and data gathering to support policy decisions
was eliminated and funding for planning was greatly
reduced. Other areas that are funded, such as
deployment and technology transfer, are nonetheless
inadequate to the task.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ SAFETEA-LU technical corrections legislation of 2008 restored
some of FHWA's lost funding and gave the agency discretion over about
an additional $14 million annually.
The 50-50 matching requirement for the UTC program
biases this program toward highly applied research and
away from advanced research that is one of the main
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
rationales for having a university research program.
Due to funding constraints, FHWA has inadequate
funds to carry through on commitments it has made in
its Corporate Master Plan for Research, Deployment and
Innovation to engage stake holders more broadly in
agenda setting, merit review, and program evaluation.
The SHRP 2 program meets all the research
principles, but is funded at only one-third the level
and for two years less than stakeholders requested. The
down-scaled program will not be able to meet all the
original goals envisioned.
The committee also makes several important recommendations.
1. To the maximum extent practical, research funding should be
awarded through competition and merit review.
2. All UTC funds should be awarded to universities
competitively. The 50-50 matching requirement for UTC research
should be reduced to a 20 percent university match to allow
universities to conduct more advanced research.
3. The Exploratory Advanced Research program should be
continued.
4. The State Planning and Research (SP&R) program should be
continued.
5. Cuts in policy, safety, operations, and planning and
environmental research at FHWA should be restored. Funding for
research and data gathering to inform policy decisions should
be increased to meet pressing national needs. The surface
transportation environmental and planning research program
should be authorized as a cooperative research program in which
the stakeholders are enabled to govern the program. In the
planning area, additional funding for expanded data collection
and improving regional travel forecasting models should be
provided.
6. Congress should consider extending the SHRP 2 program for
two years into the next authorization and funded under Title I.
(Under Title I, the funding would come from states'
construction budgets, which they have approved.)
7. Other research programs strongly supported by stakeholders
responsible for administering highways, such as the Long-Term
Pavement Performance Program\10\ and the Long-Term Bridge
Performance Program should be continued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The recently issued NRC report, Preserving and Maximizing the
Utility of the Pavement Performance Database, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, February 2009, recommends completing
the data collection from the 500 or so highway sections of the LTPP
experiment that will still be providing important information at the
end of 2009 and establishing a permanent database to allow researchers
to mine these data and complete the analysis originally envisioned for
this experiment, which has not been conducted due to funding
constraints.
8. Adequate resources should be provided to FHWA for a robust
program for deployment of research results to states, local
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
governments, and private vendors.
9. Resources should be provided to FHWA to institute a process
of ongoing priority setting for highway research that engages
the entire highway community. The results of these efforts
would inform all highway research programs and improve the
ability of all programs to focus efforts on the highest
priorities.
A second NRC committee has recently recommended a deployment
program that would implement the results of the SHRP 2 program in its
report, Implementing the Results of the Second Strategic Highway
Research Program: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality
of Life.
The committee recommends that a large-scale deployment effort
totaling $400 million over six years be carried out by FHWA in
partnership with AASHTO, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), and TRB. The committee also recommends that:
this implementation effort be guided by advice from a
formal advisory committee made up of key stakeholders who must
implement the results from SHRP 2 and
detailed, publicly-available implementation plans be
developed with stakeholder input.
I include these recommendations of this report because the large-
scale, organized deployment program envisioned provides a model for how
FHWA should be organizing itself to support the delivery of innovation.
The RTCC report calls for funding a ``robust'' program of deployment
and this is certainly an example of a robust program. It has to be.
Innovation in the highway sector is challenging. The largely public-
sector highway field results in an extremely risk-averse environment.
The barriers to innovation are high. The procurement of highway goods
and services is highly detailed and specified as public procurements
often must be. There are severe penalties for failures and few rewards
for success. The key concepts of this committee's proposal are its
guidance by stakeholders, its degree of organization and dedication,
and the scale of funding necessary to deliver results to overcome the
barriers to innovation.
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE COMMITTEE
1. How are R&D priorities developed and coordinated within DOT and how
are they aligned with the needs of the user community? What is your
assessment of these priorities? Do we need to change any R&D priorities
to address major challenges such as environmental impact and energy
consumption?
R&D Priorities
SAFETEA-LU charged RITA with preparing a multi-modal strategic
five-year RD&T plan and required that the plan be reviewed by the
National Research Council. The five-year plan was released in 2006.\11\
An NRC committee reviewed this plan and found that it was best
described as a summary of what research the various modal
administrations were funding rather than a true strategic plan.\12\
There are important reasons why this plan was not truly strategic from
a top-down perspective. First, the research titles of SAFETEA-LU
contain numerous narrowly-defined designations and many R&D activities
are earmarked to specific recipients. These designations and earmarks
exceed the amount authorized, which effectively removes agency
discretion in shifting resources to respond to USDOT priorities.
Second, as a practical matter, most of the needed research identified
by stakeholders is truly modal in character. Pavements and structures,
for example, are such a large share of highway agency responsibilities
and expenditures that it is natural that FHWA would conduct extensive
research in these areas with an interest and focus not shared by other
modal administrations. Safety is another important area for FHWA, and
its areas of highway safety responsibility are well delineated and
distinct from those of NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. Finally, the ability of USDOT to direct or control the
research programs from a top-down perspective is in a natural tension
with the efforts of the modal administrations to be responsive to the
``bottoms up'' needs for research identified by stakeholders. It is
appropriate for USDOT to set broad goals and objectives for the RD&T
program, allocate resources according to direction set by Congress,
support advanced research, and conduct mission-critical research for
federal regulation and oversight. FHWA should be taking more of a
leadership role in developing research priorities in concert with the
entire highway community. Because USDOT is so disconnected from
responsibilities of actually delivering and operating infrastructure,
however, the federal RD&T program should be largely driven by
stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Transportation Research, Development and Technology Strategic
Plan, 2006-2010. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and
Innovative Technology Administration.
\12\ Committee for the Review of the USDOT Strategic Plan for R&D,
Letter Report, August 2, 2006. http://www.trb.org/news/
blurb-detail.asp?id=6582
Alignment with needs of user community
The research programs of the modal administrations reach out to
stakeholders to inform their selection of research priorities and
projects. As mentioned previously, TRB has expert committees reviewing
the research programs of FHWA, FTA, and FRA as well as committees of
experts reviewing the FHWA's pavement research and deployment
activities and the conduct of the Long-Term Pavement Performance
experiment. TRB also manages the SHRP 2 research program, which was
identified and is governed by stakeholders. The FAA has an extensive
advisory committee structure for its aviation research program.
The FHWA probably has the most extensive interactions with
stakeholders, as described in some detail in Chapter 5 of The Federal
Investment in Highway Research 2006-2009: Strengths and Weaknesses.
FHWA's different R&D offices for infrastructure, operations, safety,
and planning and environment have varied outreach efforts to different
constituencies, including AASHTO committees, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs), industry associations, public-private consortia,
standing committees of TRB's Technical Activities Division,
environmental and safety groups, and others. The program and research
offices have developed multi-year R&D program drawing on stakeholder
input. Moreover, FHWA has committed to working even more extensively
with stakeholders in its Corporate Master Plan for Research, Deployment
and Innovation, although the RTCC notes in its 2008 report that because
of the constraints in Title V, FHWA has not had the discretionary
resources to carry out the commitments it made. Despite FHWA's
extensive and varied outreach to stakeholders, however, it is fair to
say that FHWA could do more to make these activities more transparent
to others. Many of the interactions between research and program
offices and various stakeholder groups are carried out informally. FHWA
should be communicating via its website the opportunities for
stakeholders to participate in the shaping of its program, documenting
the input it has received, and posting its multi-year research program
roadmaps. FHWA is clearly listening to and working with stakeholder
groups and most of its R&D programs and initiatives within these
programs are aligned with stakeholder interests. Because the Federal
Transit Administration's program is so heavily earmarked, it has
relatively little discretion over what research it conducts, but its
research office should be reaching out to the American Public
Transportation Association and other transit industry stakeholders in
the ongoing development of its strategic RD&T plan.\13\ Much of the
Federal Railroad Administration's R&D program is safety-oriented
research driven by its safety regulatory mission, but it also could be
more attuned to research the states and passenger and freight rail
industries would benefit from.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Transit Research Analysis Committee, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Letter report of May 4, 2007.
Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/reports/
trac-may-2007.pdf
\14\ Committee for the Review of the Federal Railroad
Administration Research and Development Program, Letter report of April
29, 2008. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/reports/
frar&d-April-2008.pdf
Changing Priorities
The TRB Executive Committee recognized in mid 2008 that the surface
transportation research proposals for reauthorization being developed
by various groups were deficient in not recognizing the growing
importance of reducing transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and energy consumption. TRB has self-initiated studies under way that
we anticipate will make recommendations to Congress before SAFETEA-LU
expires regarding research in climate change mitigation and adaptation
and will identify policy options for reducing transportation energy
consumption and GHG emissions.
Despite what I anticipate will be recommendations for dedicated
research in the areas of climate change and energy conservation, I
hesitate to recommend cutting existing programs to shift funds to these
areas. The RTCC report notes that highway research is significantly
underfunded. The share of annual revenues devoted to highway research
is only one quarter as large as industry generally and comparable to
the lowest of the low-technology sectors of industry. But the
challenges faced in the highway sector are among the most complex and
important of society. We have a sunk investment in infrastructure worth
well over a trillion dollars that has to be maintained. We lose more
than 40,000 people each year in traffic crashes. The motor vehicles
that use the highway system burn petroleum-based fuels almost
exclusively and are a main source of our dependence on imported oil. We
must find a funding mechanism to replace or supplement the gasoline tax
as the mainstay for funding highway and transit programs. And highways
are significant sources of negative environmental impact. Because we
are also so heavily dependent on highways to serve our economy and
society, the need for innovation to address these problems has never
been greater.
2. How would we improve our transportation R&D investment structure?
R&D Investment Structure
In concept, the portfolio of programs funded through SAFETEA-LU is
appropriate, but the program is far more detailed than necessary. In an
ideal world, the programs would mirror FHWA's mission, goals, and
operational areas (infrastructure, operations, safety, planning and
environment, and policy) with flexibility for the agency to be
responsive to new issues and stakeholder input. FHWA's share of Title
V, Surface Transportation Research and Technology Deployment, has 42
line items to allocate $130 million, many of these line items are at
the research project level. Compare that to NSF, which has a budget in
excess of $6 billion and roughly the same number of line items.
There are several federally-managed programs funded through Title V
that are clearly aligned with stakeholder interests; the State programs
are supported through the State Planning and Research (SP&R) provisions
in Title I; special initiatives such as the fixed-duration Strategic
Highway Research Programs have been funded from time to time; and
support for university-initiated research is provided through the
University Transportation Centers Program.
A principal weakness in the portfolio is the scant funding for
advanced, or longer-term, higher-risk research. The creation of the
Exploratory Advanced Research Program (EARP) in SAFETA-LU is a step in
the right direction. In its 2001 report, the RTCC recommended that 25
percent of the FHWA program be devoted to ``longer-term, higher-risk''
research. Applied research is the central element of the federal
program, and it should be, but it is also incremental in nature. Such
research is unlikely to result in breakthroughs that can transform
practice. At present the EAR program represents about six percent of
FHWA's overall program. It is a good start, but far from the goal the
RTCC has suggested.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ There are earmarked programs that are addressing, in part,
advanced research in asphalt. The RTCC, however, recommends that
advanced research conform to the principles Congress established in
Title V--that funds be awarded based on competition and merit review of
proposals by peers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RTCC's 2008 report recognizes the role that the UTC program
could be playing in advanced research. Universities are ideally suited
for creating new knowledge and understanding, and the UTC program is
one of the few surface transportation research programs that can fund
investigator-initiated research. The RTCC finds, however, that the UTC
program is mostly conducting applied research. A scan of highway
research projects under way in the UTC program indicates that at least
80 percent are highly applied.\16\ The RTCC concludes that the dollar-
for-dollar matching requirement of the UTC program drives it toward
applied research. Most of the providers of matching funds are state
DOTs, which they typically provide from SP&R funds, and they tend to
want their SP&R funds devoted to solving the many immediate problems
they face. An important reform of the UTC program recommended by the
RTCC is to change the matching requirement to a 20 percent university
match. This would free up universities to devote more of their
available funding to the kind of advanced research the program was
created to conduct in the first place. At the same time, of course, the
UTCs should be selected competitively, rather than having 62 percent
earmarked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006-2009:
Strengths and Weaknesses, Special Report 295, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, p. 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another weakness of the structure of the program is the relative
neglect of policy research. Many important transportation policy
questions are going uninvestigated because of lack of any funding for
this purpose, forcing infrastructure owners to make decisions while ill
informed. This is the kind of research that ought be conducted to guide
decisions about intermodal investments, such as inter-city passenger
rail, improved highway access to ports, short-sea shipping, and
policies to enhance the effectiveness of transit. The lack of policy
relevant research significantly hampered the work of the two
commissions Congress created in SAFETEA-LU to advise it on, among other
things, the future viability of motor fuels taxes to fund highway and
transit infrastructure. Gaps in knowledge about how sensitive travelers
are to rising fuel prices and increased congestion, or how freight
traffic might switch modes for these same reasons, for example,
undermine confidence in projecting future revenue streams for the
highway trust fund, which is one of the key policy concerns for
reauthorization of the highway program in 2009. Policy funding was
reduced to almost zero as a result of the over-designation and
earmarking of funds in Title V. Funding that had been about $9-10
million annually was eliminated. Last year's technical corrections
legislation helped, but restored but $1 million annually for the Office
of Policy.
Much greater emphasis on data collection is also necessary. Being
able to answer many of the most important policy questions in highway
transportation requires much better data. Research in the planning area
to develop the advanced modeling tools needed to meet federal and local
planning and environmental mandates also require better data. States
and MPOs rely heavily on the National Household Transportation Survey,
which was dropped by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS),
whose funding was also sharply reduced in S-LU. (Fortunately FHWA and
other administrations within USDOT have stepped in to provide stop-gap
funding to maintain this critical survey.) Similarly, improved, and
more timely, data on freight movements is essential for improved
planning; the Commodity Flow Survey, which is still part of BTS's
portfolio but nonetheless underfunded, should be sustained and enhanced
to meet user requirements.
Proposals already circulating that address reauthorization of the
surface transportation program, including the reports of both SAFETEA-
LU commissions, recommend that the federal-aid program become
performance based. A true system of performance measures will create
enormous new demand for better data on inventory condition and value,
real-time system performance, safety, environmental protection, and
other performance metrics.
Technology transfer is another area of weakness, as I explain in
response to Question 3.
3. How can we improve the transfer of transportation technology from
the R&D stage to deployment and adoption in the field? As we prepare
for major investment in infrastructure, how do we ensure that the
latest proven technologies are utilized?
Deployment of new technology and practice does not receive the
attention it deserves. It is important to recognize, however, that FHWA
does carry out considerable technology transfer activities. FHWA has
extensive information on its program office web pages about new
techniques, as well as technical briefings, manuals, and implementation
guidance. These activities are partially funded with R&D funds. FHWA
also administers the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) and
offers training on new technologies and practices through the National
Highway Institute. FHWA's field offices in every state are also sources
of information for State practitioners. These activities, however, are
not sufficient.
FHWA formerly had resources explicitly devoted to technology
transfer, which were lost in 1998 in TEA-21, and the office that had
specialized in this activity was subsequently disbanded.\17\ FHWA then
allocated technology responsibilities to program offices in concert
with the office of research and technology, but this responsibility was
added to other responsibilities of FHWA's existing staff. The barriers
to innovation, however, are high and the expertise required for
successful technology transfer requires a strategic plan, dedicated and
expert staff, and adequate resources to overcome these barriers.\18\
The SHRP 2 implementation report provides a model of what is required
to assist the states in deploying new technologies and practices. In
addition, the RTCC's report indicates that adoption of innovations may
require incentives that reduce the risk of trying something new. FHWA
used to have resources, for example, that would allow 100 percent
federal funding for implementing promising, but not quite fully proven,
technologies or techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Managing Technology Transfer: A Strategy for the Federal
Highway Administration, Special Report 256, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. 1999.
\18\ Implementing the Results of the Second Strategic Highway
Research Program: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality
of Life, Chapters 6 and 7.
4. What are some of the lessons learned from the last reauthorization
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the highway bill (SAFETEA-LU)? What improvements can we make?
The principles for research articulated in the preamble to Title V
of SAFETEA-LU are good ones and I hope they will be retained and
followed. They encourage stakeholder involvement, competitive award of
funding based upon merit review, advanced research, and a federal
program that spans the entire innovation process. There are, however,
too many designated programs and earmarks in SAFETEA-LU that constrain
FHWA and RITA from carrying out a research programs consistent with
these principles, reduces funding to core mission activities of FHWA,
and deny the agencies flexibility in responding to emerging issues and
the needs of stakeholders.
In terms of other improvements, I refer back to the committee
recommendations from the two reports summarized in the previous
section.
REFERENCES
All documents are available on TRB's website, TRB.org. Most are
available as PDF files for download. Congressional staff can receive
free paper copies upon request.
Committee for the Review of the Federal Railroad Administration
Research and Development Program, Letter report of April 29,
2008. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/reports/
frar&d-April-2008.pdf
Committee for the Review of the USDOT Strategic Plan for R&D, Letter
Report, August 2, 2006. http://www.trb.org/news/
blurb-detail.asp?id=6582
Cooperative Research for Hazardous Materials Transportation, Defining
the Need, Converging on Solutions. Special Report 283.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2005.
Implementing the Results of the Second Strategic Highway Research
Program: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality
of Life, Special Report 296, Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, D.C, 2009.
Preserving and Maximizing the Utility of the Pavement Performance
Database, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009.
Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion,
Improving Quality of Life, Special Report 260, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
2000.
Surface Transportation Environmental Research: A Long-term Strategy.
Special Report 268. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002.
Transit Research Analysis Committee, Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Letter report of May 4, 2007.
Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/reports/
trac-may-2007.pdf
The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006-2009: Strengths and
Weaknesses, Special Report 295, Transportation Research Board
of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology, Special Report
261, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C. 2001.
Biography for Robert E. Skinner, Jr.
Robert Skinner has been the Executive Director of the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies since
1994. TRB is a non-profit organization that promotes transportation
innovation by sponsoring professional meetings and publications,
administering applied research programs, and conducting policy studies.
It serves as an independent adviser to the Federal Government and
others on scientific and technical questions of national importance.
Prior to becoming Executive Director, Mr. Skinner directed TRB's
policy study activities. Before joining TRB in 1983, Mr. Skinner was a
Vice President of Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, a transportation
consulting firm.
Mr. Skinner recently served on the Metrolink (Los Angeles) Commuter
Rail Safety Review Panel and chaired the Special Advisory Panel for the
Stem-to-Stern Safety Review of the Boston Central Artery/Tunnel
Project. In addition it serves on a number of university and research
advisory groups including the Board of Trustees for the School of
Engineering and Applied Sciences at the University of Virginia, the
Advisory Board for the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the
University of South Florida, the External Review Committee for the MIT-
Portugal Project, and the Advisory Board for the School of Public
Policy at George Mason University.
Mr. Skinner earned his Bachelor's degree in civil engineering from
the University of Virginia and received a Master's degree in civil
engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A
registered professional engineer, Mr. Skinner received the James Laurie
Prize from the American Society of Civil Engineers in 2003.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Skinner.
Mr. Wise.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID J. WISE, ACTING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Wise. Chair Wu, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss
research and development and technology coordination and
evaluation at the Department of Transportation. RD&T (Research,
Development, and Technology) activities are vital to meeting
DOT's transportation priorities such as increasing safety,
enhancing mobility, and supporting the Nation's economic
growth.
DOT's budget in this area totaled about $1.1 billion in
fiscal year 2008, primarily for projects undertaken by the
Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). Over the years we and others have raised
concerns about DOT's capacity to improve RD&T coordination and
evaluation across the agency. As a result, in 2004, Congress
created the Research and Innovative Technology Administration,
RITA.
My testimony has two parts. I will discuss, one, the
importance of coordinating and evaluating RD&T to ensure
federal dollars are used effectively and efficiently, and two,
the progress RITA has made implementing the seven
recommendations in our 2006 report on coordination and
evaluation of transportation and research at DOT.
On the first point, in today's environment of expected
trillion dollar deficits and stimulus spending, the need for
careful RD&T decisions is more critical than ever. Coordinating
and evaluating research are key elements to federal stewardship
of taxpayers' money. The Committee on Science Engineering and
Public Policy, a joint committee under the auspices of the
National Academies of Science, has recommended a formal
research coordination process to enhance collaboration, explore
research questions, and reduce inefficiencies.
In addition, the committee notes that evaluating the
agency's research against established performance measures
helps assess research quality and achieve agency goals.
In the same vein, the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) of 1993 requires federal agencies to set performance
goals and measure performance against those goals to ensure the
effectiveness of federal investments. GPRA's emphasis on
results suggests that federal programs contributing to the same
or similar outcomes should be closely coordinated to ensure the
goals are consistent and complimentary and that program efforts
are mutually reinforcing.
On the second point, while we have not performed new
assessments of RITA since our 2006 report, we have tracked the
seven recommendations from that report. These seven
recommendations are summarized in the table on pages three and
four of my written statement.
RITA has implemented five of the recommendations aimed at
preventing duplication of research efforts, ensuring research
is evaluated in accordance with established best practices,
establishing database systems to inventory and track research,
communicating research evaluation efforts to Congress, and
documenting the process for evaluating the results of multi-
modal research programs. RITA has implemented a strategy
consisting of ongoing internal reviews to coordinate RD&T
activities and look for areas where joint efforts would be
appropriate.
RITA has partially implemented the two other
recommendations directing it to develop performance goals and
overall implementation strategy, an evaluation plan, and
performance measures. As a result, it is still a challenge for
RITA to determine its relative success overseeing the
effectiveness of RD&T activities.
In conclusion, since becoming operational in 2005, RITA has
made progress towards becoming a DOT-wide resource for managing
and determining effectiveness of RD&T activities. We will
continue to monitor RITA's efforts to implement our two open
recommendations. We look forward to assisting Congress as it
considers RITA's activities during the reauthorization process.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wise follows:]
Prepared Statement of David J. Wise
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing on the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) research, development, and
technology (RD&T) activities. RD&T activities are vital to meeting
DOT's transportation priorities, such as increasing safety, enhancing
mobility, and supporting the Nation's economic growth. In fiscal year
2008, the department's RD&T budget totaled over $1.1 billion, primarily
for projects undertaken by DOT's Federal Highway Administration and
Federal Aviation Administration. Coordinating RD&T throughout DOT and
reviewing it to make sure that it is evaluated is important to ensure
the efficiency and effectiveness of RD&T investment.
Over the years, we and others have raised concerns about DOT's
capabilities for improving RD&T coordination and evaluation across the
agency.\1\ In part to ameliorate those concerns, in 2004 Congress
created the Research and Innovative Technology Administration
(RITA).\2\ RITA is responsible for coordinating, facilitating, and
reviewing the department's RD&T programs and activities to identify
research duplication and opportunities for joint efforts and to ensure
RD&T activities are meeting intended or other goals. These include
activities conducted by DOT's operating administrations as well as
other RD&T and statistical programs managed by RITA (e.g., the Bureau
of Transportation Statistics and University Transportation Centers).
RITA carries out its responsibilities through multiple groups and
actions, including its two coordinating bodies--the RD&T Planning
Council and Planning Team--and budget reviews. While RITA has DOT-wide
responsibilities, it does not have the authority to direct changes in
the operating administrations' RD&T activities. In 2006, we reported on
RITA's progress in overseeing RD&T activities and made seven
recommendations to enhance RITA's ability to manage and ensure the
effectiveness of these activities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Transportation Research: Actions Needed to Improve
Coordination and Evaluation of Research, GAO-03-500 (Washington, D.C.:
May 1, 2003).
\2\ The Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement
Act of 2004, which also dissolved RITA's predecessor administration,
the Research and Special Programs Administration.
\3\ GAO, Transportation Research: Opportunities for Improving the
Oversight of DOT's Research Programs and User Satisfaction with
Transportation Statistics, GAO-06-917 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony today addresses the importance of coordinating and
evaluating RD&T so that federal dollars are used efficiently and
effectively, as well as RITA's progress in implementing our 2006
recommendations. It is based primarily on our 2006 report, a review of
best practices for coordination and evaluation, and follow-up
discussions with RITA officials on actions taken on our
recommendations. We have not assessed whether RITA's actions have
improved the effectiveness of the department's RD&T investment since
our 2006 report. We conducted this work in January and February 2009 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Coordination and Evaluation of RD&T Activities Help Promote Efficient
and Effective Use of Federal Research Funds
Coordinating and evaluating research are important elements in
ensuring federal dollars are used efficiently and effectively. RITA is
responsible for coordinating and reviewing the DOT operating
administrations' RD&T activities so that (1) no unnecessary duplication
takes place and (2) the activities have been evaluated in accordance
with best practices. The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public
Policy--a joint committee of the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine--has
emphasized the importance of careful coordination and focused
evaluation of federal research and developed principles to help
agencies evaluate their research programs.\4\ The committee recommended
establishing a formal process to coordinate research across agencies.
While this recommendation is focused on cross-agency research, the
goals--enhancing collaboration, ensuring that questions are explored,
and reducing inefficiencies--are important and applicable within
agencies as well. Coordination of research ensures that information is
shared so that, if necessary, research can be adjusted to ensure a
field is appropriately covered and understood. In addition, the
committee noted that evaluating research against established
performance measures in agency strategic plans, developing measures
that are appropriate for the type of research being developed, and
using expert reviews aid in assessing the quality of the research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy,
Evaluating Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government
Performance and Results Act (Washington, D.C.: February 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relatedly, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA) requires federal agencies to set performance goals and measure
performance against those goals to ensure the effectiveness of federal
investments. GPRA's emphasis on results implies that federal programs
contributing to the same or similar outcomes should be closely
coordinated to ensure that goals are consistent and complementary, and
that program efforts are mutually reinforcing.
Making appropriate and cost-effective investment choices is an
essential aspect of responsible fiscal stewardship. Such choices are
even more important in today's climate of expected trillion-dollar
deficits. Careful decisions will need to be made to ensure that RD&T
activities achieve their intended (or other) purposes and do so
efficiently and economically.
RITA Has Made Progress in Improving Its Coordination, Review, and
Performance Measurement of DOT's RD&T Programs
In 2006, we made seven recommendations to enhance RITA's ability to
manage and ensure the effectiveness of RD&T activities, including
developing strategies for coordinating and reviewing RD&T activities
and developing performance goals and measures. (See Table 1.) RITA has
implemented five of our recommendations and is making progress on
implementing the remaining two.
RITA Implemented a Coordination and Review Strategy, Developed a DOT-
wide Database of RD&T Activities, and Communicated
Results of Evaluations
Preventing duplication of effort. In response to our recommendation,
RITA developed a strategy to ensure that no unnecessary duplication of
research programs occurs within the department, incorporated the
results into various high-level DOT planning documents, and reported
the results in its strategic plan. RITA's strategy consists of ongoing
internal reviews of all of DOT's research programs. These reviews are
conducted by (1) convening meetings in which officials from each of the
operating administrations share information about areas of ongoing and
planned research, seeking opportunities for joint effort, and (2)
conducting annual reviews of each operating administration's research
plans, looking for research duplication, among other things. In
addition, RITA has formed eight working groups, in concert with DOT's
operating administrations, to foster collaboration on cross-modal
issues. According to a RITA official, results of these reviews have
identified several areas for cross-modal collaboration, including
climate change, freight capacity, security, alternative energy
technologies, and advanced materials and sensors. According to RITA
officials, as a result of these actions, RITA is better able to meet
legislative and DOT requirements for coordinating its research,
leverage resources for cross-modal research initiatives, and prevent
unnecessary research duplication.
Following best practices. RITA also developed a strategy to ensure that
the results of all DOT's research activities are evaluated according to
established best practices. The strategy includes three primary
mechanisms: (1) ensuring systematic application of the Office of
Management and Budget's Research and Development Investment Criteria
(relevance, quality, and performance) and the Program Assessment Rating
Tool by the operating administrations;\5\ (2) annual internal program
reviews with self-reporting by the operating administrations; and (3)
documenting the operating administrations' external stakeholder
coordination and review. According to RITA, reviews conducted in fiscal
years 2007 and 2008 focused on how well the operating administrations
are implementing best practices, including external stakeholder
involvement, merit review of competitive proposals, independent expert
review, research performance measures, and external research
coordination. RITA reports the results of its reviews to the
department's RD&T Planning Council, which consists of administrators
from each of the operating administrations, including RITA, and
officials from DOT's Office of the Secretary. According to RITA
officials, as a result of these efforts, RITA is better able to
determine the quality and effectiveness of its research activities and
investments and determine whether they are achieving their intended (or
other) goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ According to the Office of Management and Budget, these
criteria are rooted in best practices and include peer review as a
mechanism for assessing program quality. The Program Assessment Rating
Tool was developed to assess and improve program performance to inform
funding and management decisions. It consists of a series of questions
covering program purpose and design; performance measurement,
evaluations, and strategic planning; program management; and program
results.
Establishing RD&T project databases. RITA created two database systems
to inventory and track all of DOT's research activities and provide
tools for querying and searching individual projects to identify
potential duplication and areas where operating administrations could
collaborate. The first database, the RITA Research Notification System,
captures research investments at the transaction level, allowing users
to search by activity, contracts and grants, and contractor names,
enabling identification of funded programs for coordination,
collaboration and review. The second database is part of the annual
Research Planning and Investment Coordination (RPIC) process, which
captures research at the budget request level, allowing for department-
wide transparency and coordination of proposed programs and projects.
According to a RITA official, eventual combination of the two databases
will offer a mechanism for measuring and tracking investments from
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
request through funding and execution.
Communicating evaluation efforts. To communicate its efforts in
evaluating DOT's research to Congress, senior DOT officials, and the
transportation community, RITA and its predecessor organization
published a summary of all research program evaluations for 2004
through 2006 and included that summary in a high-level DOT planning
document and in a report to Congress. First, RITA's predecessor
published what was essentially a summary of all research program
evaluations conducted in fiscal year 2004--in the form of a summary of
the results of its review of the operating administrations' application
of the Office of Management and Budget's Research and Development
Investment Criteria--in its 2005 annual RD&T plan. Secondly, RITA
developed a summary of the results of its fiscal year 2005 and 2006
research program reviews, and a schedule of RITA's planned fiscal year
2007 reviews, and included it in DOT's ``Research, Development and
Technology Annual Funding Fiscal Years 2006-2008, A Report to
Congress.'' This report also includes summaries of research program
evaluations conducted by modal research advisory committees, the
Transportation Research Board, and key modal stakeholders in fiscal
years 2006 and 2007. According to RITA officials, as a result of this
reporting, RITA has provided better continuity and context to Congress
and the transportation community about the results of its research
evaluations.
Documenting processes. RITA has also acted to document its process for
systematically evaluating the results of its own multi-modal research
programs, such as the Hydrogen Safety Program and various grant
programs. RITA evaluates the results of its RD&T activities by ensuring
they align with DOT goals, meet the research and development investment
criteria, and are subject to an annual peer review process. RITA has
documented this process in its strategic plan.
RITA Has Not Yet Developed an Overall Implementing Strategy, Evaluation
Plan, or Performance Measures
Establishing performance goals. In 2006, we found that RITA lacked
performance goals and an implementing strategy and evaluation plan to
delineate how the activities and results of its coordination,
facilitation, and review practices will further DOT's mission and
ensure the effectiveness of the department's RD&T investment. RITA has
partially implemented our recommendation that it develop these
elements. Setting meaningful goals for performance, and using
performance information to measure performance against those goals, is
consistent with requirements in GPRA. Developing an evaluation plan and
analyzing performance information against set goals for its own
coordination, facilitation, and review practices could assist RITA in
identifying any problem areas and taking corrective actions.\6\ Linking
performance goals with the planning and budget process, such as DOT's
annual budget process, can also help RITA determine where to target its
resources to improve performance.\7\ Guidance provided by the Committee
on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy notes that evaluating the
performance of research in the context of the strategic planning
process ensures the research is relevant to the agency's mission.\8\
Without such goals and an evaluation plan, it is difficult for RITA to
determine its success in overseeing the effectiveness of DOT's RD&T
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Use of performance goals can help ensure that programs are
meeting their intended goals, allows programs to assess the efficiency
of their processes, and promotes continuous improvement. Where
activities may be fragmented or overlap, performance information can
also help identify performance variations and redundancies and lay the
foundation for improved coordination, program consolidation, or
elimination of unneeded programs. GAO, Managing for Results: Using the
Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap, AIMD-
97-146 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 1997).
\7\ GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance
Information for Management Decision-making, GAO-05-927 (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005).
\8\ Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy,
Evaluating Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government
Performance and Results Act (Washington, D.C.: February 1999), 37-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to RITA officials, while an overall implementing strategy
and evaluation plan has not yet been established, RITA has created
performance goals. A RITA official told us that the RPIC process--a
relatively new process that integrates the budget and strategic
planning processes--will help in creating an implementing strategy. The
RPIC process is meant to provide information to the Planning Council
and Planning Team, which is responsible for defining the department's
overall RD&T strategic objectives. The RPIC process assesses the
department's RD&T activities in terms of the following performance
goals: (1) balanced portfolio (e.g., mix of basic, applied,
developmental, and high risk RD&T), (2) alignment of RD&T programs with
DOT goals and each operating administration's mission, and (3) return
on investment. The RPIC process has been in place only for fiscal year
2009, and as a result, the Planning Council does not yet have the
information needed to make decisions about a strategy. In addition,
RITA does not yet have an evaluation plan to monitor and evaluate
whether it is achieving its goals. A RITA official told us that the
RPIC process needs to be in place for two or three fiscal years before
it can provide enough information for RITA to establish a strategy or
evaluation plan.
Developing performance measures. In 2006, we also found that RITA did
not work with the operating administrations to develop common
performance measures for DOT's RD&T activities. According to RITA
officials, RITA has partially implemented our recommendation that it do
so. Without common performance measures for the RD&T activities of the
operating administrations, RITA and the operating administrations lack
the means to monitor and evaluate the collective results of those
activities and determine that they are achieving their intended (or
other) results and furthering DOT-wide priorities. In response to our
recommendation, RITA officials told us that they are working with the
operating administrations through the RD&T Planning Team--made up of
senior officials in RITA and each of the operating administrations.
During Planning Team meetings, representatives from each of the
operating administrations share information about how RD&T projects are
measured and prioritized. For example, according to a RITA official,
the Federal Railroad Administration measures how frequently its RD&T
projects are used in real-world applications. Once representatives from
each operating administration have had the chance to share information,
RITA officials will then look for commonalities and determine whether
any of the measures could be adopted for the department's RD&T
activities.
In closing, since it became operational in 2005, RITA has taken a
number of positive steps to meet its vision of becoming a DOT-wide
resource for managing and ensuring the effectiveness of RD&T
activities. While we have not assessed the effectiveness of these
efforts since our 2006 report, we believe that RITA has made progress.
We will continue to monitor RITA's performance in implementing our
recommendations. As reauthorization approaches, we look forward to
assisting Congress as it considers RITA's management of DOT's research
program, to better ensure that taxpayers receive the maximum value for
DOT's RD&T investment.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the
Subcommittee might have.
Biography for David J. Wise
Dave Wise began his career with GAO in 1981. He worked at GAO until
1991, including a four year tour in GAO's former Far East Office in
Honolulu, Hawaii. Dave then moved to the Department of State's Office
of Inspector General, where he specialized in reviews of consular and
international programs, with a focus on counter-narcotics. In 2000,
Dave became a Foreign Service Officer, serving tours as (1) political
officer/narcotics coordinator in Hanoi, Vietnam; (2) Director,
Narcotics Affairs Section, Vientiane, Laos; and (2) political advisor,
Provincial Reconstruction Team, Helmand Province, Afghanistan.
Dave returned to GAO as a Senior Executive Service candidate in
September 2007, where he is working with GAO's Physical Infrastructure
team on surface transportation, communications, and real property
issues.
Dave has a BA in political science from the University of
Pittsburgh and an MA in public administration from Pitt's Graduate
School of Public and International Affairs.
Discussion
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Wise, and now we will
open for our first round of questions, and I recognize myself
for five minutes.
Mr. Brubaker, you referred to some of the challenges that
you faced as head of RITA, and Mr. Wise, you have--you and your
organization have performed a lot of analysis on RITA's
functions. There has been some reference to RITA's
responsibilities versus its authority to implement what it is
responsible for.
Mr. Brubaker, would you care to expand on your experiences
in facing the frustrations of that, and Mr. Wise, if you would
care to join in or any other of the panelists.
Mr. Brubaker. Sure. You know, I said sometimes being at
RITA I sort of felt like John Belushi in the movie ``Animal
House'' where he runs out of the room, and he says, ``Let's do
it,'' and nobody follows him. That is kind of how it felt
dealing with some of the cultural obstacles that we faced in
the Department.
We do have, frankly, the responsibility and the authority.
The legislative authority is very clear about what we are
supposed to do. What we ran into were some cultural obstacles
to change, and I have got to tell you, I am kind of shocked,
and GAO is used to getting criticized sometimes, and they are
going to feel weird because I am a little critical that we
actually met five of their open--their recommendations of the
seven and partially achieved two of them. I would strongly
suggest they go back and really take a hard look at all seven
of those vis-a-vis RITA and see really the--and make a judgment
on the efficacy of how we responded because----
Chair Wu. So you are actually saying GAO might have been
too generous.
Mr. Brubaker. I think they were, frankly. There are, I
mean, they may not have reviewed, we may have just done a
really good job of responding to the open recs or something,
but the reality from my perspective was there was just so much
more we could have done from a select control evaluate
perspective of the research portfolio. But we ran into every
mode sort of wanting to play hide the ball and protect their
existing portfolio of research. It made it very, very difficult
to ensure that the underlying research was strategically
relevant.
Now, we did, like I said in my opening testimony, we did
achieve a level of transparency. We know what the underlying
research projects are, but we have made no value judgment
relative to how they fit in the overall strategic direction. Do
they plug in nicely to the strategic buckets that are described
in the strategic plan? Yeah. We were able to force-fit most of
that research, but the grim reality in my perspective is that
we weren't particularly effective at creating a process by
which we could actually control the research through its
execution and then evaluate it in terms of outcomes.
Chair Wu. What mechanisms do you think RITA needs to
implement, to achieve that?
Mr. Brubaker. It is like my good friend, Lieutenant General
Bob Shay always used to say. At the end of the day it comes
down to leadership. I think there is a leadership issue where
the, you know, you have got to have strong leadership in the
RITA position, you have got to have accepting leadership among
the modes, you have got to have strong leadership at OSC
(Office of Special Counsel) where the Secretary says thy will
be done, to push the authorities and to ensure that the
authorities are actually executed.
At the same time, I think there are some structural things
that are missing. Like I said, the National Transportation
Research Agenda. I don't see that. You know, we have got this
RD&T Strategic Plan, and frankly, again, the first pass at it
was a force-fit of all the existing research into the strategic
plan of the Department. It didn't really reflect a strategic
direction or a very good alignment of research, the research
portfolio to achieving the objectives of the Department. That
is what has got to happen, but it has got to be broader than
the objectives of the Department. It has got to take into
account stakeholders, universities, users, economic development
people, because the transportation infrastructure is so
critical to the economic health and well-being of this nation.
We saw it over the summer when fuel prices went up, you
know, astronomically. We saw the impact that that had, and
frankly, I think we are still feeling the effects of that
increase. What would have been great had, if we would have had
the data and the research capacity to do modeling and
simulation and be able to understand the impact that that would
have on the supply chain, on modal choices, and ensure that we
were responding appropriately. And we just simply didn't have
that knowledge because we have never laid it out that that is
strategically important.
Chair Wu. Mr. Wise, I want to give you a cut at it, and a
couple of you also referred to cultural issues in research. I
want to finish up that--with that--and I will also announce
from the Chair that it is my intention to use a soft gavel on
this hearing since there are only three of us here, but there
will be a gavel, but please proceed with a set of answers about
this topic and the cultural issues. And then we will proceed to
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Wise.
Mr. Wise. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Also thanks to Mr. Brubaker
for his frank opinions and interest in the GAO report from
2006. I think it is important to make a point that when we did
this work, which is now probably just over--about four years
ago, RITA had just stood up. It was a new organization, and
essentially we were looking, it had just taken the place, after
the Mineta Act of the, of RSPA (Research and Special Projects
Agency). And we were basically looking to see that processes
were in place to do the mission that it was set up to do.
Quite frankly, we have not been, other than following up on
the recommendations that indicated these processes are in
place, we have not really done a formal assessment to go back
and see how well the organization is actually carrying out all
its responsibilities. That is something that if the Committee
were interested that maybe would be a useful project as the
Committee sees fit.
So in that respect it is difficult to give a learned
assessment of how well RITA is doing, because it really wasn't
the focus of what we did in that 2005/2006 work.
Chair Wu. And before we finish, anyone who wishes to
address the inertia or the cultural issues, and I heard that
mentioned by more than one witness.
Dr. Deakin, please.
Dr. Deakin. It seems to me that the cultural issue is
really very serious, actually, and we have organizations that
are modeled in many cases for building the interstate highway
system, and they haven't really changed the organizational
structure much since. They are very hierarchical. They are
rather slow in being able to respond to things. They are pretty
top-down. That is not true across the board. Some agencies have
actually tried to innovate the organization structure, but it
is pretty true for a lot of these agencies, and there isn't any
real incentive for change, partly because there is no outcome
focus in the legislation and partly because there is no outcome
focus in the State legislation saying you have to show what you
are actually producing in terms of cost effectiveness of the
investments, producing outcomes like economic prosperity, lower
costs for users, environmental quality improvements that you
can measure and demonstrate, greenhouse gas reductions, more
equity in your system. We could give them those kinds of
mandates and say we want reports to come back and tell us what
these are going to look like, and we haven't really done that.
Now, Congress did that with reports on the state of
infrastructure some years ago, and it took awhile for all the
states to get used to having to collect it and report it. They
didn't always do it well, but gradually they all got so they
were reporting these data, and those data have been very
useful. So, again, giving them a mandate and saying, do this,
let the best states do what they are already doing, and it
gives everybody else a push. Everybody does better, and you
actually could measure outcomes and not just dollars spent and,
you know, what is being turned over but see what we are
actually accomplishing with these investments.
So I think Congress could take leadership on giving us some
clear mandates to show what we are producing. Thank you.
Chair Wu. Mr. Skinner, if you----
Mr. Skinner. Just very briefly. I think Dr. Deakin is
correct in relating----
Chair Wu. Microphone.
Mr. Skinner. Excuse me. I think Dr. Deakin is correct in
relating the cultural challenges to the institutional
challenges that we have, and one could imagine an institutional
arrangement that is not nearly so decentralized without so many
thousands of players who are--who own our transportation
system. We could imagine that, and we might think that it would
be more effective, not only for research but for managing and
operating our transportation system.
And that may be true, and that is a big question. But from
the research perspective, research is unlikely to drive that
change in the institutional arrangements. And so the research
community is confronted with this enormous technology transfer
challenge, and so this, the question of stakeholders and how to
involve them and how to have them meaningfully connected to the
products--and connected so that when products come out they are
all ready, the skids are already greased for them to implement
and try these products, that is a critical feature of any
strategic approach to R&D and surface transportation.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Skinner. We may return
momentarily to these cultural issues before we move onto some
of the output and matrix sides, and meanwhile, I want to
recognize other Members of the panel, particularly Mr. Smith,
who has been very forbearing in permitting this series of
answers be completed.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. I--this is all very interesting,
especially as a relatively new Member to listen to the various
challenges, and I appreciate your willingness to tackle these.
And I think it speaks to kind of the largeness of the issue,
the complication of the issues, not even to mention funding,
that, funding of research, and then funding of carrying out
that research in a useful manner. And in a way that leverages
other opportunities.
I know that we had some controversy in Nebraska when the
director or, well, when a person said that the Department of
Roads in Nebraska really wasn't in the economic development
business. And you can imagine that there was some resistance to
that statement and for good reason. And when I look at the
various issues, whether it is the energy issue of our vehicles,
we have much different issues in rural America than urban,
wherein urban America we subsidize less vehicle travel and
virtually in rural America we subsidize more vehicle travel
with various roads and systems.
A hybrid, for example, the benefits are less meaningful
when a commute is done at 65 miles an hour or maybe a few more
miles per hour on the way to work and home. So the benefits are
certainly less. So we--I think we need to allow some
flexibility.
That being said, Dr. Deakin, if you would perhaps point to
maybe a specific research project that you could identify where
many of the obstacles that have been mentioned here have taken
place, maybe how you would change things but maybe a specific
project as tangible as possible, if you could elaborate.
Dr. Deakin. Yeah. I would be glad to. The project that was
mentioned by several people at our research was the
installation of call boxes along part of the freeway system in
Northern California at a time when wireless technology, cell
phones, were proliferating already, and the call boxes I think
had a useful life of about 15 minutes--a very, very short
period because by the time they were actually out there along
the road, most people were already using cell phones.
So it really wasn't paying attention to market. The project
got put in a pipeline and pushed through because the money was
there, it had been allocated, and you know, you get in a
program or projects. But it wasn't an effective investment of
the funds.
That is a situation where I think that the remedy is pretty
obvious. If there had been more discussion with the cell phone
companies about the technologies they were developing--and we
were sitting right there with Silicon Valley people who know
about marketing for these things.
I disagree a little bit with Bob Skinner. I think there is
a lot of research on how to change institutions, done by
business schools, not in transportation institutions
necessarily, but making those connections could happen.
I think there are opportunities to begin to think about how
to really bring private marketing, private knowledge about
markets and also university research on institutional change
and markets into play much more than we have, and that is how I
would fix that kind of a problem.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you. That is a perfect example. I
appreciate hearing that.
In, even in places other than Nebraska, I am sure, we have
what I think is a response to gridlock that is very reactive in
nature. It is kind of like, well, let us wait for the problem
to form and then we will solve it.
I guess, Mr. Brubaker, if you wouldn't mind responding to
how we could get beyond that, what obstacles you currently see
in place. I know it is going to be funding, you know, a part of
that, but, again, I would say with the funding issue, I mean,
the more successful we are with conservation measures when we
fund our roads with a per-gallon fuel tax and there are fewer
gallons being used but yet more vehicles, more tires on the
road, wheels on the road, that is not a sustainable formula. If
you could respond.
Mr. Brubaker. Sure. I just, you know, at the end of the
day, yeah. Everything winds up being a resource issue, but it
could be a resource allocation issue of existing resources to
solve things like congestion or, for example, I mean, you heard
Bob Skinner mention, you know, $400 million unencumbered for
SHRP. Well, you know, that is all fine and good, but is the
$400 million better spent in some other areas, like, for
example, congestion mitigation, for example, rural safety
research that involves more than just roads. It can involve
some other things. It can involve some behaviors, human factors
stuff.
It is not all about the hockey pucks. I mean, you know,
the--sorry--the concrete research. I mean, I am all about, you
know, it is great to have different types of asphalt and
appreciate all the geographic disparity and the reasons to
better understand and spend money on research for concrete and
asphalt, but, you know, we have got to kick it up a higher
level and look at this more holistically like you say in terms
of, you know, what we can do and where we are best spending
that limited resource that we already have before you start
talking about more money.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Anyone else wish to respond.
Mr. Skinner.
Mr. Skinner. Let me just, since it was mentioned, the
Strategic Highway Research Program implementation effort is not
directed at concrete and asphalt research. It is a large-scale
safety accident causation project, and a large project aimed at
renewing our highways in a more accelerated manner with less
disruption, longer-lasting afterwards. Another piece is dealing
with non-recurring congestion incidents and the like and
figuring out ways to reduce that element of congestion. And
another piece that is oriented towards planning and environment
is looking to streamline ways to plan for new capacity in a
more environmentally-sensitive and community-sensitive manner.
I think all those things would fit within strategic
objectives that one would come up with for the Department as a
whole and our transportation system.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you. I will have more questions
later.
Chair Wu. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Lipinski. Please proceed.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for
holding this hearing early on. I know that this is an issue
that is really very important to me being not only on the
Science and Technology Committee but also on the Transportation
Committee. I also have a background in engineering. I studied
something called engineering economic systems, which was what
it used to be called at Stanford, but there is a lot of
operations research, optimization, all kinds of puzzles trying
to--we worked on trying to solve, trying to give us the skills
to solve these puzzles, which really relate very well here when
talking about transportation.
There are, you know, endless possible goals that we could
have, and I think it is very important that we are here talking
about what these are. I mean, are we just going after, you
know, trying to lessen the traffic congestion? Are we trying to
cut down on fuel usage? Are we trying to make the roads safer?
Then other questions of, you know, talking, besides talking
about roads, are we talking about rail? What about just general
inter-modal, you know, transportation and not just for people
but also for freight.
And you can get into endless questions here, which--and we
could so much better, I think, be using our transportation
system that we have and planning our transportation system if
we really got our hands around some of these issues.
And I am very happy to be here in the Science and
Technology Committee and hear a witness talk about how
crucial--Mr. Brubaker did--how crucial transportation is to the
economy. I hear that all the time in the Transportation
Infrastructure Committee but not oftentimes here. So it is good
to hear that here.
So I just wanted to--there are so many different things
that we could talk about, but I just want to, first of all, a
question for Dr. Deakin and anyone else who wants to respond.
Are we really making sure or how can we make sure we get the
best bang for our buck from money that we are spending here?
You know, there are a lot of great ideas, and as you put out
that example there, where we put the call boxes out on the
road, but we missed the fact that the technology would be
changing, and it really wouldn't be that useful.
So how do we--what can we do to get the biggest bang for
our buck with ITS systems and the deployment of ITS systems? I
mean, I see these signs along the road, electronic signs that I
don't really see that they are being put to much good use, but
we put the money out there so----
Dr. Deakin. The signs that say, congestion ahead when you
are already in a stop-and-go traffic jam aren't particularly
helpful to any of us, I think. But I think we are getting
better at some of this. There are some technologies that have
more applications than others, and this one example I would
give you relates to Mr. Smith's question about what do we do
about fuel taxes.
We are getting a lot better devices that would let us
measure vehicle miles traveled in obtrusive ways, ways that
don't invade people's privacy. We all know the fuel tax is
running low. You know, we could raise it if there were
political will to do that, and it would last for awhile. But
cars have to get more efficient. They are going to change. So
that doesn't seem to me to be a long-term strategy. And if we
started implementing technologies that would let us monitor
vehicle miles traveled in cheap, fast, safe ways of doing it,
still protect people's privacy, we would also open up the
possibilities of congestion pricing in those places where it is
needed, and there is political will for it, which is not
everywhere, but it is definitely some places. It opens up the
possibilities for making it easier for people because I could
pay my toll, I could pay my parking, I could, you know, get
around in my transportation system a lot faster.
And there are similar things we can do in transit, by the
way. So I don't want to make it sound like this is just for
highways since there are a lot of options in transit as well.
That is almost a no-brainer in my opinion, and it is the sort
of thing where the big issue right now is which technology: are
we talking wireless, are we talking radio signal devices? So
there are technology competitions, but in some ways that seems
less important than the fact that we have to start testing
those technologies and giving the states both the authority and
probably the mandate to do it would be one way to get going on
that.
For making sure that these things are cost effective, there
is nothing like doing a business case, and that is what I have
seen missing is really the development of business cases. And,
again, I think business cases are often best developed by third
parties who are a little bit at arm's length and not
necessarily the advocates of the project just because you need
somebody else with eyes on this to make sure that we are really
making wise decisions on the investment. That is what we do
when the private sector is working properly, and we try to use
business cases to test that.
And then post-hoc evaluations: we just haven't seen very
many post-hoc evaluations, and again, they have to be done at
arm's length, not by the project proponents, because if they
are not at arm's length, then they are always a little suspect.
So stepping back--and these are the kinds of research that can
help. There is a research component to that. There is also
practical partnerships that can be done to make that happen
better, and I think, again, the legislation could help
encourage that kind of arm's length evaluation, learning from
that arm's length evaluation would then happen. They could
require that business cases be developed. I actually think a
lot of the DOTs are trying to do this and would welcome having
that kind of support saying, yes, we have to do that, we have
to spend our money in a smarter way than we have been spending
it.
And then focusing on outcomes. Are you actually--what are
you actually wanting to get from these projects? It is not just
turning the dollars out. It is seeing that we actually have a
lasting value that is cost effective, and we know how to do
that. I used to work in Terman [Hall at Stanford] before I
moved up across the bay to the private--from a private to a
public sector. So I know the program that you are a graduate
of, and as you know, there are lots of people who know how to
do these kinds of evaluations. We could put them to work.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Mr. Wise, do you have----
Mr. Wise. Yes. I think that something that might be of
interest to you either in your role in this subcommittee or on
your role on House T&I (Transportation and Infrastructure) is
that we have just started recently some work on real-time
traffic information systems. This is a subset of ITS. And of
course, I defer to Dr. Deakin, who is a recognized expert in
this field, but just kind of getting into it in the beginning,
we are looking at some areas that I think might be getting at
some of the things you were alluding to in your question. And
we are looking at things like the cupboards that exist on real-
time traffic information technologies, the information that is
available on the impacts and costs of the systems, and then I
think one of the more interesting aspects is the option for
developing a nationwide real-time traffic information system
and the potential benefits of, and the barriers to developing
such a system.
In different parts of the country, of course, it means
different things to different people. If you are in the western
suburbs of Chicago, congestion is a major issue. If you have
got a 60,000 square mile district, and there is an accident on
the interstate, it is good that somebody can know about it. And
as Dr. Deakin was mentioning, there are serious questions about
the technology. It is a very fast-moving target right now with
lots of evolving technology. I think there is some interesting
pilot work going on out in the [San Francisco] Bay Area on GPS
cell phone technology. I think that the private sector will
probably be playing a major role here, and the question is what
will be the DOT or the government's role.
So there are a lot of interesting issues out there in this
area. I will be happy to keep the Committee apprised of the
progress as we work through this issue.
Mr. Brubaker. I just want to mention something. On this
Safe Trip 21 pilot that Mr. Wise is referring to, you know,
that is really something that I don't think would have been
done in the normal construct. We actually were able to pluck
that out at RITA and sort of lead that but pull together a lot
of different modes to make that happen. That is a transit, that
is a highway, that is a very--that is an individual mode of
transportation, be it bicycle or walking. I mean, there is a
whole host of things that play into that, which is really kind
of an interesting approach and a unique approach.
But we started with kind of the outcome in mind of what we
wanted to present, and as somebody who knows systems
engineering pretty well, you know that we have really--we
really kind of designed the protocol in a way that would
support, you know, that outcome that we wanted to achieve.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Chair Wu. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
Dr. Deakin, when you referred to Terman, were you referring
to a building----
Dr. Deakin. Yes, I was. That is the engineering building at
Stanford.
Chair Wu. I spent many a lovely evening at the Earth
Sciences Library nearby.
Dr. Deakin. Yeah.
Chair Wu. Wonderful place.
Mr. Saenz, did you have something to add to the last back
and forth?
Mr. Saenz. Yes, sir, and I think one of the things when,
you know, the question was how do we make sure that we get the
best bang for the buck, and you know, I think it starts from
being able to identify some goals within your research right
now, really some goals in the management of the organization
that will lead to some goals or some--and then how do you
measure them.
And one of the things that we started doing in our research
program a few years back is we put in place the teams at a high
level that were the experts, both from, on the Department side,
academic side, and even the private side, to identify some
goals that we wanted to accomplish in the different--the
research management areas.
And one of the things that we really looked for is we
wanted to identify some research that would result in the
implementation of a technology that would give us a savings.
Very similar to what I talked about with--we used some of the
national research in the barrier cable, but even within the
Department we looked at what can be looked at that will help us
create a much safer transportation system, and then how can we
measure what we are accomplishing.
And that leads to ensuring that you spend your money in a
safe and wise way.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Saenz.
Ms. Edwards, please proceed.
Ms. Edwards. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chair.
For Mr. Brubaker, I wonder if you could elaborate a bit
on--and good that you are the former administrator, because I
think sometimes we can see things differently inside versus
outside, and I wonder if you might elaborate on priority
setting. I think it is easy--it is an easy answer to say, well,
we just need more money to do X, Y, and Z, and I know that in
some of your testimony you focused on priority setting and, you
know, rejiggering the kinds of research that we are doing. And
so I wonder if you might elaborate on that.
Mr. Brubaker. Sure. I would be delighted to.
You know, the--what we have never really done, again, and I
mentioned this in my written testimony, is establish this
national transportation research agenda, which I believe should
really be the driver of all the research investment rather than
try to force-fit, you know, activity that we are already doing,
things like SHRP, for example, that we are already doing into
specific buckets.
And I don't mean to pick on, you know, the Federal Highway
Administration, but, you know, they kind of want to be left
alone in that prioritization process, as does federal transit,
as does rail. Everybody wants to kind of be left alone and do
their own, you know, research.
And I think it is absolutely critical that we call a time
out, we take a step back, we assess what we want our priorities
to be, we clearly state those in terms of what kind of outcomes
we want. For example, I had the Intelligent Transportation
System Joint Program Office under my purview when I was at
RITA. I actually shared it administratively with the Federal
Highway Administration, which created some really interesting
situations, which I can elaborate on off-line. But the point is
that they have always sort of just been doing projects, and
what I asked them to do was really focus in on what they wanted
to achieve in terms of, you know, did they want to take a
safety focus and reduce the six million crashes that we have
every year using Intelligent Transportation Systems, making a
big dent in the 40,000 lives that we lose every year. And put
those, make that a priority. Really design the research program
to have a measurable impact on reducing crashes, reducing the
fatalities, reducing the $230 billion in economic costs that we
incur every year because of those six million crashes. And put
it in terms of outcomes. And then how do you basically reverse
engineer the research program to achieve those results.
That is the kind of thing I am talking about but on a macro
scale for the entire Nation. What are like the five or six
things that we really want to accomplish? Reduce congestion,
greenhouse gas emission reduction, you know, rural safety. I
mean, what are the big impact things that we need to do. Then
we need to look at that $2.1 billion----
Ms. Edwards. And how to develop a system----
Mr. Brubaker. Right on. We have got to take that $1.2
billion and then begin to plan how we spend it to achieve the
outcomes in those big areas. So that is what I am talking
about.
Ms. Edwards. I appreciate that.
Let me just--Dr. Deakin, very quickly, can you talk to me a
little bit about what you think the appropriate role for social
science research is in thinking about a more coordinated
transportation system?
And I want to just share with you, you know, I know locally
we, you know, we have an economic development team that works
on economic development in one spot. And then you have a set of
transportation people who go, oh, we are doing an economic
development project. We need to think about transportation. And
those things are thought about very separately, and so the rail
people are in one place and the roads people are in another
place, and it never seems that we are really looking at the
linkages there.
And then how are we going to use that? As a consumer, what
does a system mean for me? And so I wonder if you could talk
about the way that we could use a social science research base
to inform more strategic thinking around transportation
planning.
Dr. Deakin. Yeah. I would be glad to. It seems to me that
those linkages are exactly where social science can shine and
make a big contribution to helping us figure out how to do this
better, because the social sciences, among which I would
include planning and policy sciences in, as well as business
administration and management sciences, as part of a bunch of
people whose expertise is to really think about organizations
and organizational behavior and how to create collaborations.
There is a lot of work that has been done in collaborative
processes. Some of that is theoretical. Some of it is
evaluating different processes to see which ones work and which
ones don't and is very practical.
So there is a whole range of social science work that is
looking at how different organizational structures--how to
flatten organizations because we have got a lot of evidence
that flatter organizations are more efficient. But networked
organizations, organizations like Google are not highly
hierarchical. They are pretty flat, but they have got a lot of
networking and a lot of linkages. The importance of informal
networks of knowledge as a way of really quickly getting new
ideas out in the field.
It is not, you know, that people go and read papers. They
call a friend that they know because they met at a meeting or a
conference and say, ``Hey, what is going on in your field?''
or, ``What do you think about this idea?'', and how to
facilitate that sort of behavior instead of punishing it, which
actually happens in some of our current organizations. Don't
talk to your boss's boss without permission, or you might be in
trouble in hierarchical organizations. Of course talk to your
boss's boss and then tell everybody what was said is a flat
organization approach to that. So that is what is coming out of
the social sciences on how to restructure institutions, new
institutional ways of doing business.
Studies on public-private partnerships. What does it mean
to have a public-private partnership? That term captures a lot
of territory, and some of these partnerships work well, and
some don't work well at all, and we really need to get that
knowledge into people's hands about what has been effective and
what hasn't been effective. And it is social scientists who are
doing that research.
I think it is a question of specialization. My colleagues
who are mechanical and civil engineers and electrical engineers
and computer scientists are really good at what they do, and I
don't want to try to do their work for them, because, boy, I
couldn't do it. By the same token, they are not necessarily
very good social scientists. They are not necessarily the best
people to be doing evaluations. They are not necessarily the
best people to be thinking about markets or institutions. There
are other disciplines that do that, and that is where the
social science people, I think, really can help us a lot.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Wu. Thank you, Ms. Edwards, and since we have had a
couple of folks on this side of the aisle, Mr. Smith, why don't
you proceed.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Saenz, in your testimony you state that the boundaries
of various State and federal programs need to be defined more
clearly. Can you describe how the multiplicity of R&D programs
affect the planning and operations at TxDOT?
Mr. Saenz. A lot of times as we are doing our work we work
with different areas. We got planning, and you have the, more
of the technical side, and then sometimes we don't have the
good communication or the good coordinated effort. What we have
been trying to do at our level, at the State level, is, as I do
have the research management committees, we also have an
oversight committee that is made up of all of the chairs of our
research management groups, as well as our key administrative
staff of the Department so that when we can coordinate and then
we can--that way we can communicate with the different areas as
we go up to the federal side.
We just, all I think we need is more cooperation, more
coordination.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you very much. You know, it is
interesting as we hear, you know, kind of a request, somewhat
of a request for more clearly-defined programs, you know, that,
if you get too detailed, then I think we discourage that cross-
communication. And so that is interesting, and I am not
criticizing your suggestion for more-clearly defined
responsibilities, but do you sense any obstacles such as that?
Mr. Saenz. No. I think what we are trying to get is I think
we need some definite goals and then we can work together at
both the State and the federal level to identify these
strategies as well as the implementation plans. And then at the
same time we can define the roles and responsibilities of each
so that we don't have the duplication of efforts, and we in a
sense get more done with less is where we are trying to get at.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you.
Chair Wu. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
I have two major areas that I want to explore and then two
smaller areas, and at least in this round the major area I want
to open up to the extent that folks don't want to continue
talking about cultural issues or inertia, because I want to
fully explore that topic before moving on.
But in a related field a number of you have referred to a
concern about developing a coordinated research agenda in
moving to outcome-based measures, and I wanted you to finish
addressing any of the cultural and inertia issues that we face,
and the challenges of moving to a coordinated research agenda.
And what would be outcome-based metrics and to give further
examples and then elaborate on your written testimony.
Whoever wants to begin to take a cut at those areas.
Mr. Brubaker.
Mr. Brubaker. If I may, yeah. And I will try to keep my
answers a little briefer than they have been in the past here.
I am just remembering from my staff days. The, you know, it is
really interesting that as we look toward developing a
coordinated agenda, to understand that how we move people, how
we move freight today is multi-modal, it is multi-dimensional,
it is multi-disciplinary and keeping that in mind. So you have
got to bring--and I think Dr. Deakin really nailed it when she
said, you know, how you approach these things. It is not just a
civil engineering problem. It is an electrical engineering
problem, it is a, you know, structural engineering, it is
social science, it is economists. All of them have to be in the
room to help develop this thing.
Chair Wu. So the problem is siloed----
Mr. Brubaker. Siloed thinking. Right. You know, you go to,
I mean, and here is the problem that I have got, and with all
due respect to Bob Skinner and TRB and Federal Highway
Administration with SHRP, is that it is housed in Federal
Highways. You are more likely to get a Federal Highway type
answer to the question, even though it might be taking
advantage of a multi-modal problem, even like cooperative
freight research, for example, you know, we have done research
and funded research and are aware of research where we track
shipments of things like seafood from the Pacific Northwest
down to the Southeast of the United States. And we see that it
travels by short-sea shipping, it travels on rail, it travels
on the highways. So you have got to have an in-depth
understanding of all those things, plus the economics, plus the
behavioral issues, you know, to really understand how that
system works holistically.
I keep coming back to this term, holistic, because things
really are multi-dimensional and multi-modal and multi-
disciplinary, and you have got to break down that siloed
thinking, and there is really no place in the Department I
think to do that other than RITA.
Chair Wu. Anyone else?
Mr. Skinner, since you have been referred to.
Mr. Skinner. Yes. Well, let me just--I just want to
emphasize what I think is, that it is an enormous challenge to
have a broad, integrated research plan.
Chair Wu. Uh-huh.
Mr. Skinner. The transportation sector is roughly the same
size as the health care sector, and so imagine what our
comprehensive health care research R&D program would look like.
Now, I am not saying we are as good as the health care sector
in constructing a research plan, but I just want to stress the
enormity of the task that would be before us.
And linking that, I think the strategic plan, yes, it has
to think about the goals, it has to think about outcomes. But
it also has to think about processes and how do we allocate our
resources across the entire innovation cycle so that some
research that is of a highly-applied nature, relatively, can be
implemented fairly soon, and we can judge it pretty easily,
perhaps with respect to its rate of implementation and its
outcomes.
But for other research such as, say, the SHRP work on
understanding accident causation, crash causation it will be
years before that fairly advanced research is translated to
specific changes in the way the vehicle is designed or the
roadway is designed. But it holds the promise of giving us the
knowledge that we need 10 years from now, 15 years from now,
for having breakthroughs in understanding the interaction
between the driver and the vehicle and the roadway in accident
causation.
Chair Wu. Thank you for that insight, Mr. Skinner. When you
think about it, the health care sector, the transportation
transit sector, and the housing sector are roughly equal in
size. If you consider the amount of research that goes into
each of those and the nature of that research, it is very, very
different. And if you consider energy savings, the building and
housing sector is much more ripe than either transportation or
some of the other areas.
Anybody want to address the out--I am sorry. Dr. Deakin or
anybody else wants to address the metrics side of this
challenge? And Dr. Deakin, you may have something on the
existing topic.
Dr. Deakin. Yes. Actually, I have been doing some research
on how other countries are actually handling this problem of a
research agenda, and we are falling behind our competitors on
this. The EU countries, Canada, and Australia all have been
trying to develop these kinds of strategic plans that are
really focused on outcomes, and the kinds of outcomes they are
measuring: Are we getting good value for dollars spent, and
what is good value? They are measuring, are we getting faster,
cheaper, more reliable transportation service than we would
have without that investment and for how--for what period of
time, because not all of them last forever. Are we reducing
greenhouse gasses? Are we reducing pollutant emissions? Are
were providing better service to everybody? Is service equally,
you know, equitably distributed to our population?
So those are measures of outcomes. You know, is there--
basically they are looking for economic performance and
economic development is certainly one of those things that you
want to measure, you know, did it help get you better, you
know, more access to jobs?
We can argue about how to actually measure those things,
and there is a lot of research actually that has been done on
what are good performance measures and not-so-good performance
measures that we can look to on this.
So I think measuring outcomes is something we can actually
look to our trade partners for and see how they are doing it,
borrow their ideas, and build on what they have done and go a
step farther and get ahead of the game on this. So I don't
think that is--that part I think we could do pretty easily.
I think there is a difference between focusing on what to
do and focusing on what to achieve. I mean, what to achieve is
the outcome measure. With what to achieve you might say to
people, you know, you decide what is the best way to improve
the reliability of your transportation system, but you have got
to show that the reliability is being improved. And they pick--
figure out what is the best way for them to do it in their own
situation.
An output--that is really different from saying a highway
design manual where you have to look it up and do it by the
book, and we have done I think a little too much of the ``by
the book'' we are going to tell you how to do it, and not
enough of the, we are going to focus on what you accomplish by
making those investments.
The final point I would make, and this is echoing something
Bob Skinner just said, sometimes we do need to set aside money
for research that is not immediately tied to a product, because
that long-term research is incredibly important. And I want to
speak on behalf of CalTrans on this. CalTrans had the
confidence in its universities, they gave us matching funds for
our transportation center funds without earmarking a penny of
it. They didn't tell us what to spend it on.
And we ended up with a very mixed portfolio of projects,
some of which were applied and actually were done with
CalTrans, but some of which were on topics that weren't on the
national or the State agenda, including research that was done
on what we could accomplish in transportation systems with new
fuels, new vehicle technologies, and other technologies, and
travel demand management strategies, transportation pricing
studies, all of which were done well before any of this hit
either the State or the national agenda.
And because of that I think we are way ahead of the game in
being able to provide leadership on these issues as we are
coming to the conclusion we need to address these kinds of
topics now, because we have got that research that started in
the late '80s, early '90s that we kept building on it, and it
wasn't, we couldn't have said at that point, what did this
study on transportation pricing alternatives actually do for
CalTrans or for anybody else for that matter. But now we can
look at that study and use it and say, well here are some
ideas, and here are some analyses that actually show you what
we might be able to accomplish if we did a VMT (vehicle miles
traveled) price instead of a fuel tax, or what we might get if
we did congestion pricing and how effective it would be, and
where it would be. And oh, by the way, what are the politics of
congestion pricing in our major metropolitan cities, because
that is not a straightforward thing.
So we did that research, there wasn't a clear tie to a
deployment immediately, but it has helped us 10 and 15 years
later.
Chair Wu. Terrific. Before I turn to Mr. Smith, anybody
else on this topic?
Mr. Smith, please.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, and anyone wishing to respond to
this, but when we talk about the matching fund requirements and
changing those to a heavier federal side of the funding, what
do you think, how would that impact, obviously it would free up
funds locally or at the transportation, the TRB, and given the
fact that, and we have heard criticism of current research
programs as lacking the technology transfer, are the UTCs
(University Transportation Centers) capable of turning long-
term projects into the real-world benefits given a funding,
matching, matching funding change?
Mr. Skinner. Okay. I will start. I imagine this is a topic
others will address. You have a center director here with us,
and you have the former administrator responsible for UTCs.
And the--as mentioned in my testimony, a committee that we
had that looked at the Federal Highway Administration's
research program, which--of which a big component of UTC
research is highway research. That committee recommended that
the matching percentage drop from 50/50 to a 20 percent match.
And the argument there is that many states were not operating
in the manner that Dr. Deakin described for California in that
they were--they did have expectations if they were providing
matching funds, and those expectations were towards fairly
highly applied research products.
And the universities have this opportunity, which Dr.
Deakin has explained, to do longer-term, higher-risk, blue-sky
research on the areas that we haven't thought of, and our
committee felt that that was being stifled to a degree by that
matching percentage. And so if the matching percentage is
reduced, the universities would have greater autonomy in
setting their own agendas. There would still be the opportunity
for overmatches by states and others. Some universities, no
doubt, would choose to continue to do highly-applied research,
but other universities might choose to go off in the direction
of longer-term, higher-risk research, and others might have a
mix like Dr. Deakin described.
Chair Wu. Mr. Smith, may I jump in just for a second?
I understand where we are going with this change from 50/50
to a 20 percent match, but can't you earmark just as
effectively with a 20 percent portion and leverage the other
80?
Mr. Skinner. I think in certain cases that would happen,
but I think it would certainly happen to a lesser degree with
20 than it does with 50/50. As you said, even, as Dr. Deakin
explained, even with the 50/50 California allows quite a bit of
latitude.
So I think it is, I think our committee, you know, whether
the number should be 30, should it be 15, should it be zero.
They settled on 20 as a step in the right direction.
Mr. Brubaker. Okay. I will go next.
On a non-controversial subject, you know, my experience
with the 50 percent match is that it works, and it leverages
the dollars that we invest into the system.
I come back to the--sort of the fundamental objective for
what historically we have tried to achieve under the University
Transportation Center Program, and that is training the next
generation of transportation leadership. That in many cases, in
fact, in most cases involves training individuals who go out
and work in the field. Work in the field on applied--on real
live applications, things they need to do.
So there has been a criticism that the program is a little
too focused on applied research, and I don't know that that is
such a bad thing when you are actually training people who need
to go out and work in the field and be marketable. And if they
are doing really the squishy, sort of basic research that,
where there isn't really a solid performance-type outcome but
it leads to other research or further sustains the knowledge,
which by the way, is very good, then, you know, I would expect
that person or those people to be a little less marketable or a
little less attractive to the field.
So, frankly, I think the program has been fairly effective.
I think, well, actually, not fairly effective. I think it has
been very effective in the current mix and how things are sort
of arranged, and I would hate to see us tinker with something
that I think is fairly well leveraged today and fairly well
balanced and produces the result that we expected to create.
Mr. Smith. Anyone else wishing----
Dr. Deakin. Yeah. I obviously have a self-interest in this
topic. We have over 100 faculty members in the UC (University
of California) system who participate in the UC Transportation
Center, and we let any faculty member who does transportation
research at any of our campuses compete for funds. The funds
are reviewed entirely outside our university by people who
don't have any close connections. It is an NSF (National
Science Foundation)-kind of review process. CalTrans also
reviews them and then we meet and prioritize which ones will be
funded.
We use the USDOT research agenda as one of the bases for
prioritizing what we fund. We also use Cal Trans research
priorities since they are providing matching funds. We, as I
said, end up with a mixed portfolio. We have produced literally
100 students a year for 20 years who have gone to work in
transportation. So that is a pretty big chunk of people coming
out of that program for the investment. And many of them have
now risen to positions of leadership. In my home state, in
California, both assistant directors at the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission are graduates of our program, Jose
Luis Moscovich of the San Francisco County Transportation
Authority, Christine Monsen of the Alameda County
Transportation Authority, Malcolm Carson of the LA DOT
Commission for the city, and I could go on and list all kinds
of people who have been out of school for awhile and have now
risen to positions where they are in considerable positions of
authority and are really providing a lot of leadership.
So we are pretty proud of that as part of our product in
addition to our research product.
Frankly, we couldn't have attracted some of those students
into transportation, into transportation as opposed to another
area of work, if we hadn't had the ability to offer them
fellowships and graduate research assistantships through our
research. And if we got hit with a cut, and you know, CalTrans
might be generous enough, but our State budget is in a terrible
situation so I am not so convinced, we might get some of the
match. They might not be able to do it. I don't think it is
because they don't love us. I think they do love us. I think it
would be because they don't know where their next dollar is
coming from.
So that kind of a loss of match would certainly hurt us,
would hurt our ability to produce the students, would hurt our
ability to produce what I think has been overall a very
positive set of research findings, many of which have been
implemented, many of which are changing policy and creating new
ideas all the time.
So, you know, it is basically a cut in funds for the
transportation centers, I think, is the only way to
realistically look at that. It doesn't mean that we couldn't
make it up later when it looks like CalTrans might not, we
might have a budget this year in California. I scrambled around
and looked at foundations and found money from Hewlett and the
Energy Foundation, but even they, now with the downturn are
telling us that they lost 30 percent of their endowments. And
so that is not even going to be easy in the future.
So I think you have to look at it as if you cut it to 20
percent, it is going to be a cut in the amount of funds, a cut
in the amount of the research, and a cut in the amount of
product that you are going to get, and that is the only way I
can interpret it.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Wu. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
A number of you have referred to technology transfer
problems, consulting with end-users, implementers before
proceeding on research, in the course of research, and in
implementation phases. Could you expand on some of the pinch-
points, some of the impediments, how to overcome them, your
recommendations for more effective tech transfer going forward?
Whoever wants to start. As an end-user. Mr. Saenz.
Mr. Saenz. And I think I will tie it really to not just the
research program but the--anything that we do. We in Texas have
25--the state is broken up into 25 districts. Sometimes I think
we have 25 Departments of Transportation, and a lot of our
district engineers in a lot of those offices work
independently, and they try things, and they do things, and
they evaluate things, and they identify best practices. And
even within our state we were having problems in sharing that
information so that the state could benefit as a whole.
One of the things that we have been trying to do as a whole
is, under my administration, I put in place an assistant
executive director that is working with all of our outside
offices to ensure that we do get that kind of information
collected, presented, using different methods through, either
through reports, through being able to use technology, chat
rooms so that we can get that information to the other people
across the state because we can generate some efficiencies.
The same thing can be done on the research program. We
already communicate closely, but I think we always need to look
at what we are doing today and how we can make it better.
Because we thought we were communicating as a state in sharing
information district to district because they communicated, but
we found out that there was a lot of things going on that one
area of the state did not know anything about.
So we need to always go back and look at what we are doing,
how we are doing it, how we are sharing it, and how could we
ensure that we are doing it. Again, you measure your success of
what you are doing.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Saenz.
Mr. Skinner.
Mr. Skinner. We could talk all afternoon about tech-
transfer, and I would probably enjoy it. We manage cooperative
research programs, what we call cooperative research programs
in highways, transit, and airports. Each one of those programs
is governed by a committee that is not created by TRB. It is
a--the institutional arrangements vary, but for example, the
committee of--the research committee of the American
Association of State Highway Officials governs our highway
cooperative research program, and the Secretary of
Transportation appoints the governing group for the airport
program, and so on.
These programs are highly applied, and so the tech transfer
problem is not nearly so great for that kind of research,
because stakeholders know what their problems are, they program
money to deal with those projects. Oftentimes they are
connected with the association committees and the operators.
And so the panels that we put together that steer the research
have the people on-board that would help with tech transfer
later on.
So that those kind of programs work very well, but I would
never claim that the entire research program should be
comprised of these programs. They are--they don't handle
crosscutting issues very well. They are at the highly-applied
end of the scale. They are not doing the longer-term stuff. And
for the kinds of programs implementation is a considerable
challenge, particularly when it must ultimately trickle its way
down to county road officials.
So they are relying on, you know, there is no perfect set
of things. The Federal Highway Administration has a Local
Government Assistance Program. That is good. Many local
governments have terrific relationships with states and depend
on the--depend on minimizing essentially State practices and
materials and designs. MPOs--Metropolitan Planning
Organizations--probably depend heavily on their own network and
individual contacts for improvement in planning methods. And
champions in getting states to go out and pilot and then lead
the way for others is terribly important.
So, again, I just would stress that this is a complicated
subject. There is no one answer, and there are a lot of
different tools in the toolbox that have to be employed.
Chair Wu. Well, believe me, we work on tech transfer,
whether it is from NIH (National Institutes of Health) labs to
transportation to nuclear detection, and I guess it is what I
think Boswell or Johnson said about dogs walking on their hind
legs. It is not done well, but one is amazed that it is done at
all.
Mr. Skinner. At all. Right.
Chair Wu. And a lot of the world thinks that we do it
better than most, but I am kind of amazed by that, too.
Mr. Brubaker, you had something to say.
Mr. Brubaker. Ditto. I couldn't agree with you more. Yeah.
I mean, fundamentally, and I am going to say something which
may be a little controversial here, but it is designed to have
a little bit of an impact, but I don't think tech-transfer is
truly a priority of the Department's research program, and it
needs to be. I think the priority needs to be clearly stated. I
think it needs to be programmed. I think you need to take some
element of existing resources and direct it toward a tech
transfer and commercialization-type activity.
I used to serve as Chairman of Virginia's Innovative
Technology Authority, and that whole authority was established
almost exclusively and initially, when it was initially
established to do tech transfer from Virginia's colleges and
universities and laboratories and to ensure commercialization
of the most promising technologies. And Virginia, frankly, had
done a really good job of doing that, and helped manage the
SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) program, and the
context of tech transfer and doing some other things.
So I come at this with that background. So I actually
believe that there should be a very deliberative program,
activity around technology transfer and commercialization where
we can glean some best practices from some of the universities
that do a really good job, some of the State associations that
do a really good job, some of our overseas, you know, folks who
do a really good job of it. Glean those best practices and
apply them.
I am amazed at some of the things that I have seen in terms
of technology transfer by some of the universities,
particularly, I mean, I think UC-Berkeley has a good program, I
know Texas A&M does because we have gotten underneath it pretty
substantially, and I think there are some clear lessons that
can be learned by that.
But I am perplexed because--and I do think this is, again,
a function that really needs to be in RITA, and I will tell you
why. Because I am really perplexed by how you can promote
something like the Universal Freight Shuttle that was developed
out of the Texas Transportation Institute, which is effectively
a new mode of transportation. It is a monorail effectively that
uses individual rail cars that move freight containers
through--from, you know, ideally when it is originally, when it
will be deployed, it will be Monterey, Mexico, through Laredo,
up to a land port in Dallas, Fort Worth. At least that is the
initial design of it. But it doesn't fit nicely into federal
railroads, it doesn't fit nicely into highways, but here this
is this great innovation, and I know that they had a heck of a
time trying to figure out how to commercialize something like
that, how to get the knowledge out.
One of the things that I think we fall victim to in the
Department is we tend to have researchers and create forums
where researchers talk to other researchers, which is a form of
tech-transfer, but it is not necessarily getting the technology
out in a forum where it can be effectively utilized.
So I think we need to take a look at this. I think the
Department needs to make it a priority. It should be a priority
in the next reauthorization, and it should be programmed and
resourced effectively.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Brubaker.
Anyone else on this topic of tech-transfer, impediments,
and procedures going forward?
Dr. Deakin.
Dr. Deakin. I think there has been a model of tech-transfer
that it is something that happens at the end of a process, that
you develop research and then you move it forward into
refinement, after refinement, and then eventually you deploy
it, and at that point you start doing tech-transfer. And that
is, I think, a recipe for failure, that kind of a model. I
think you have to start thinking about users, demand, markets
in the beginning, and one of the--if it is short-term research
as Bob Skinner pointed out, that is easier to do than if it is
long-term research. But in other areas we have business
councils and business science, science councils that help talk
about these things and keep this on track. And there are other
mechanisms I think that could be devised that would help us
integrate thinking about what is--where are we headed, what is
the vision for this, what is the scenario that we have in mind.
Mr. Saenz was saying to me that he thought that the things
we ought to be doing are scenario planning and use, having
think tanks but also doing scenario planning and then doing
evaluations on projects. Each of those could use some guidance
from people who are really thinking, what is the vision here
that we have. Is that a realistic vision, challenging that at
the beginning, sharpening up that vision of where it is going.
Let me give you an example. A problem we have in California
a lot is that people say, gee, if we could manage the freeway
system and the arterial system as a couplet, then everything
would be a lot more efficient, and we could spread traffic
around, and we wouldn't have so much congestion. We could put,
you know, make use of the capacity better. Well, if the
arterial happens to be the kind of arterial where having more
traffic on it is okay, that might work. But two-thirds of the
time, in my experience, those arterials are also main street,
residential streets, shopping streets. They have got all kinds
of other values associated with them, and maximizing throughput
is not the objective of the owners of those facilities.
And so we actually had to change our thinking about that
and recognized that we have to do context-sensitive design and
context-sensitive operation. But I still hear some of my
colleagues on the technology side say, gee, if we could only
operate this system as a whole, not even recognizing that there
are these other values that have to be brought in.
And that is just a question of not communicating with the
right people, because other people could tell them, let us talk
about the context in which that will work and the context in
which that won't work.
So starting to think about deployment, starting to think
about markets and public consent and people's values and what
is being proposed fits with values and markets and preferences
really from the beginning seems to me to be critical to make
tech-transfer work.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Dr. Deakin.
Before we turn to what I hope to be one final topic here,
Mr. Skinner, since I made an at-best neutral comment about one
of your findings earlier, I wanted to return to that and give
you a chance to address it.
In your written testimony there was a number of a $400
million increase in research funding, and before we head into
a, shall we say, disjuncture between aspirations and resistance
to additional research funding, I want to ask you about where
you get your number about 0.9 percent of sales, research for
transportation versus 3.6 percent of sales in other industries.
And then, and also to give you a chance to address what I take
you to say as not just an increase in current surface
transportation research but perhaps a reorientation of that
research into other fields where there may be current research
going on but to associate that with transportation.
Please proceed, Mr. Skinner.
Mr. Skinner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is quite a lot. Let
me first start by saying that I certainly didn't want to leave
the impression, and I don't think our reports wanted,
committees wanted to leave the impression, that the answer is
money, and money alone.
Chair Wu. We have parallel goals.
Mr. Skinner. That regardless of what--of the resources that
are available, there are a variety of things that our
committees have documented--and are in my written testimony--
that we can do to make our research programs--technology
programs more effective.
The 0.9 percent of total expenditures is arrived at simply
by adding up all of the highway research program spending that
we can find in the United States and comparing that to total
highway expenditures, and that compares with this, you know,
three percent figure, which comes from--it is not compiled by
us. It is probably compiled by the Commerce Department. It is
referenced in our report.
And I think you will find in the private sector that even
mature industries spend at least one percent and----
Chair Wu. Let me ask you about that. You are probably
including industries like pharmaceuticals where the spending is
in the mid teens. You might be including technology industries
where the spending is at a slightly higher percentage. But if
you compare it to, shall we say, heavy industries, like steel
or ag, that might be perhaps more--although it is unfair
because we are also talking about computer systems and
transportation.
Mr. Skinner. That is right. You are making my point, that
it is quite a range. It is one, you know, one to ten to fifteen
percent, depending on these very high-tech industry and the
like. And my point there is that this is not a low-tech
industry. Yes, we have very mature technologies that are
difficult to change like asphalt and concrete, but we have
Intelligent Transportation Systems, we have very complicated
institutional problems that the private sector doesn't deal
with. We have behavioral issues related to safety, and travel
demand, and the like.
So, yes, you know, as to where we should be in that
spectrum, we are just observing that we are on the, you know,
on the low end.
Chair Wu. So it is different percentages, if you will,
different--a different baseline for different parts of
transportation research because it is a large segment of the
economy just like health care, just like construction.
Mr. Skinner. Right. I mean, we spend, I think, probably
three times more to try and save a life in our cancer research
than we do in research related to highway safety. So--but now
let me--so that is the first number. Where I got the 0.9
percent.
The other one was the $400 million, which is relating to,
you know, the total expenditure that we estimated in a
Congressionally-requested study on the implementation of the
Strategic Highway Research Program products. And there is a
little bit of a crystal ball work there because the research
program is still just fully underway, and we were required to
submit a report this year.
But it is, we--it is illustrative of how much importance
our committee placed on the tech transfer process and its
complexity. In this particular case I will say that there is a
bit of apples and oranges, because this--I referred earlier to
the accident causation piece of it, where at the end of the
SHRP program, we will have a very large database. So the $400
million also includes the care and feeding of that database, as
well as further research on the--on that database, which will
hopefully give us the products that will make their way into
vehicle design and roadway design.
Chair Wu. Now, do you have a recommendation about a proper
amount of funding for the next appropriations period, for the
next highway bill period, and what the uptake limitation might
be for the research infrastructure that we currently have in
place?
Mr. Skinner. Thankfully, I do not have a recommendation.
Chair Wu. I will tell you what. For each of the panelists
and your friends in the research community, that is a question
that I am very, very interested in, and I am sure that other
Members of the Committee would be very interested in that as we
develop the research title of this reauthorization.
Mr. Skinner. Right. I mean, our committee has, you know, we
have observed that we could, you know, we could--more money
could be justified, but certainly if the money were doubled or
something of that nature, there would be the capacity issue
that you are referring to. And regardless of the money, there
are a host of reforms that we can make to make the overall
program more effective.
Chair Wu. Terrific. Thank you very much, Mr. Skinner.
Anybody else on that topic before--Mr. Brubaker.
Mr. Brubaker. Yeah. I mean, I come back to this that I said
in my oral testimony and that I referred to in my written
testimony, and that is that I think it is really difficult to
assign, I don't know how you can assign a number as to what the
right number is for what we should be spending on
transportation research.
I go back to that national transportation research agenda
as sort of being the driver. The right number is the number
that it takes to spend on research to achieve the outcomes that
you are looking to achieve. But I would really caution that the
thing to do or to ensure as part of the process is that there
is an ability to select, control, and evaluate the research
portfolio. That is--and I view that as an inherently-
governmental function. It should rest somewhere in the
Department. In fact, I think it should, the development of that
plan and the monitoring, the execution I believe should rest in
RITA.
You know, and moreover, I mean, if somebody really wants to
increase the funding, maybe make it, maybe gate that funding,
maybe make it, you know, there is a percentage increase that
increases every year of the authorization where, perhaps, it is
predicated on successful implementation of such a construct of
oversight, if you will, where you are actually controlling and
evaluating those underlying research programs.
That I think would be a responsible, frankly, approach to
that type of a discussion.
Chair Wu. Terrific. Thank you.
Dr. Deakin.
Dr. Deakin. I guess I take a slightly different way of
thinking about this myself. We could draw a technology
innovation curve and think about that as when you are first
starting to develop technologies, high risk, potentially high
payoff, you have to spend a lot of money on research. When
technologies are well understood, well deployed, the rate of
change, rate of innovations slows down a bit (and this is over-
simplification, obviously), you don't need as much research
money.
And so the question is not just a question of how much do
you need in transportation but what are you going to do in
transportation and where do you want to put that money, on the
innovations or on the stuff that is relatively stable? And that
is a curve, and you can actually do an analysis and figure some
of that out, I think, a little better than maybe we have done
in the past.
We have had a tendency to staple together everybody's
proposals in the past, and stapling is not the best way to do
this, I don't think.
The other piece of it is, I think, this is a huge question
about what you want to count as being as part of the problem,
part of the problem set. If you think about the supply of
transportation, just the supply, you have got vehicles, fuels,
operations, and facilities. And DOT doesn't do most of the
vehicles and fuels. Those are actually private sector, EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) and DOE (Department of
Energy). And if you are going to talk about transportation
systems improving as a whole, and you are only talking about
the facilities and operations, you are already shooting
yourself in one foot. If you don't recognize that the private
sector has to be part of that discussion because they are
producing most of what we are talking about, you are shooting
yourself in the other foot.
So it seems to me that that is a big issue that the way DOT
has been organized and the difficulty that DOTs had, not just
internally, which Mr. Brubaker spoke about, but also in
creating those partnerships that go to EPA, that go to DOE,
that go to the Department of Agriculture, that go to Housing
[and Urban Development] (because there is a big housing and
community development aspect) that go to Commerce on the
economic development aspect, are also part of what would really
have to be discussed seriously here. And that affects how much
money you want to spend in research. You know, it doesn't seem
to me that all the research is necessarily going to be inside
Department of Transportation. It might be in these kind of new
forms of organizations that might be semi-formal, that is they
might be partnerships mandated by Congress among agencies that
create networks and advisory committees to supervise how the
dollars are spent.
They are really different from what you have been doing.
They are not all internal. It might not be in RITA at all, or
it might have RITA manage part of the process but have to be
told to create these partnerships and do it in a different way.
So I just think we could open this up and really think
about it differently.
Chair Wu. And that is part of the opportunity and the
frustration of this moment. You are quite correct that the
transportation issues are not just in DOT, and it would be much
better to have linkages between DOT and DOE, for example, but
this committee, or this, the larger Science and Technology
Committee, does have jurisdiction over the research components
of DOE and DOT.
And the opportunity is that the new Energy Secretary is
very, very enthusiastic about moving forward on a broader front
and coordinating with other agencies and is very cognizant of
issues of culture and inertia.
In fact, to speed up the research process in his agency, he
is looking at bringing in folks from ag because they have
dispersed funds faster, traditionally.
Mr. Brubaker. Right.
Chair Wu. So that is part of the reason why we focused on
cultural issues a little bit because, you know, there is a lot
of discussion about how to get agencies reoriented to address
issues. I mean, we push legislation out of here, and we kind of
assume that it is done when we push legislation out, and it
could be three to five years later and it hasn't hit the ground
yet.
Mr. Brubaker. Right.
Chair Wu. And I just want to be very sensitive to the
multiple layers that it has to go through before it hits the
ground.
Mr. Brubaker.
Mr. Brubaker. Can I--I would like to add something to that
because I think we did something fairly unique when I was over
at DOT that in the alternative fuels arena where we did engage
the Department of Energy, and we had really close relationships
with the folks in EERE, on--the Energy Efficiency and Renewable
[Energy] folks. We had good relationships with them,
particularly as it related to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and
battery development and some of the things that we were really
interested in.
To my knowledge, and I don't know, I hope that that
activity is still going on, but that was informal, and I think
as we begin to have, you know, a new generation of people who
come into the government, government service, and are used to
collaborating and are used to dealing with Facebook and are
used to picking up the phone and asking people questions no
matter where they sit or what organizational stovepipe they are
in, that is going to be more of the rule rather than the
exception.
But I will tell you, I got a lot of raised eyebrows when I
first started to engage our colleagues at the Department of
Energy on these issues, and initially, you know, there was some
dancing around, turf battles, and, you know, like whose turf is
what, but when we broke through all that stuff, I think we
had--and they played an integral part in the success of a
hydrogen road tour that we did over the summer where we took a
fleet of hydrogen fuel-celled vehicles from Maine to Los
Angeles, across the country. And we were in lockstep for that
particular project. That wasn't formal. It wasn't mandated by
anybody. It was just something that we did.
At the same time at the secretarial level we were not at
the plate at all when gas prices were going through the roof,
but the impact that those fuel prices were having, you know,
at--on the transportation infrastructure, on our supply chain,
our passenger movement system was profound. And it is
unfortunate, but I almost think it is sort of a generational
issue where people are used to collaborating who--when they are
somewhat younger or more, you know, more interested in that
sort of thing. And when you get to sort of the older folks who
are used to working in their rigid agencies, and you know, they
are getting advice that they have to stay in that lane, that
occurs. And fortunately, I think technology is going to break
down all that stuff ultimately but--and create new paradigms
for work, but I just wanted to offer that concrete example,
although it is not a concrete example.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much. I have always thought of
myself as a young pup, but now as I get older I find that, you
know, I am more sympathetic to the old dogs and maybe I am one,
but there has been constant reference to the sociological
aspects of organizations and technology and a more intermodal
approach rather than a pyramidal approach to problems and
organizations.
Anybody else on this topic before we move onto my final
one. And I will also give you all a chance for a catch-all at
the end of this.
Well, for me the last topic I have is the proposals for
reorganization of UTCs or organizing them differently. We have
already addressed the splits for funding matches, and we might
return to that at a different moment in time as we get closer
to reauthorization, but there has been some discussion on a
competitive process versus whatever you would call the process
that we currently have. It occurs to me that we have 50
centers, we have 50 states. That could be a coincidence, but,
you know, I know that coincidences do occur. I just haven't
seen one in Washington yet.
But to the extent that any of you would like to address
the--what it would look like to have a competitive system for
UTCs and awards, what the criteria would be, I would like to
hear your--I would like to have your input on that topic.
Mr. Brubaker. Mr. Chair, I don't mean to--I am very, I hate
to say this in this way, but I can't think of a better way to
say it. I am passionately indifferent to whether they are
competitive or not. I have seen ones that have been
competitively awarded. I have seen ones that are earmarked, and
both to a large extent are effective. There are a handful that
may need some help on both sides of that equation, you know, so
I, frankly--it is not one of my--the recommendations that I am
passionate about in any way, shape, or form.
So I just think, you know, not that I want to say don't
rock the boat on this thing, but it seems to be, the system
seems to be working reasonably well. I am a big proponent of
competition. I love competition in contracting and you know,
everything else, but the reality is I think we have struck this
delicate balance, and it is probably best not to expand or
contract in terms of the number of centers; contract because I
don't think you want to deal with, I don't think anybody wants
to deal with the political fallout that is a grim reality of
this situation. But at the same time I am more focused on what
can you do to make whether they are earmarked or competitive
more effective.
Chair Wu. Well, I was not aware that this issue existed
until fairly recently, and I guess I am trying to decide, Mr.
Skinner, whether I should be passionately indifferent or, you
know, passionately care about this.
Since you all have had some recommendations, let us hear
from you next.
Mr. Skinner. Yeah. I think on this topic, and I think I am
on firm ground in saying that throughout the work of the
National Academies, that we consistently come down on the side
of competition and merit review as one of the hallmarks of
quality control in scientific research.
Now, does that mean that someone can't do excellent work at
an earmarked center? No, of course not. And the program is
fairly mature now, so that it is conceivable that the current
portfolio of centers is better than the ones that we had 15
years ago.
But I do think that if one did want to open up a purely
competitive environment and restructure the program in that
manner, I think there would be this question that Dr. Deakin
alluded to--is the dual purpose of the program; research on the
one hand but also attracting young, talented professionals into
the field and giving them a good educational experience.
And that--it is not that you can't do both of those things,
and probably there are many people in this room that were in
programs that did both, but I think it would require some
thought. Because there are other ways to provide support for
graduate students besides University Transportation Centers
programs. And so that would have to be considered if we were
starting from scratch.
Dr. Deakin. I would say that the centers actually started
out as a competitive program in the first round in 1987.
Unfortunately, the competition was organized by federal region,
and transportation excellence isn't necessarily distributed
evenly by federal region, and so that wasn't purely competitive
in the way I would think you would want to organize it.
If you look at the earmarked centers, they are a very mixed
group. Some of them are top research universities. Two that
come to mind immediately are Northwestern and Minnesota, either
of whom would be able to compete very effectively for research
dollars. Some of them are much more modest, local teching
colleges that are not known particularly for research, and
their research is modest, and I would actually leave it to
their own State and local people to tell us whether they are
producing the people that they need, because I see those as
workforce development investments for those centers.
And I think RITA has encouraged that aspect of it, that
they really try to make sure that they are measuring whether
their people are ending up going into transportation jobs and
being productive in those jobs. So looking at that dual role,
that has certainly been an issue in this business.
One thing that I've thought about that might be a way to
manage this process, I believe in competition. I think
competition sharpens everybody up, makes us all work harder,
think harder, try to get creative. It is good to get a push, so
I don't mind having to compete. I think it is actually good for
us, and if we got our comeuppance, I think it probably would
teach us a lesson. So we would do better the next time. So I
support competition.
One strategy that has been discussed and has operated in
the past has been you got an earmark but then after a few years
you are expected to compete, and there won't be as many centers
as there are competitors or maybe new people can come in and
compete as well. And I think that has actually worked pretty
well, because it is removed from the process some centers that
really weren't able to be productive and let other people who
might not have either the political connections or the famous
professors yet----
Chair Wu. Uh-huh.
Dr. Deakin.--to get into that process, and some of those
centers have really developed and become good research centers
frankly, so--from the earmarked center. So I think we have seen
the earmarks being productive in both producing people and
producing research in at least some cases that would be
competitive on any ground.
So I would say go for a process that encourages competition
periodically after an initial period, even if there are
earmarks, because that sharpens everybody back up. Let those
centers that haven't been able to get their act together and
perform be removed from the process in a rational way, and let
other people take a chance and say, we want to do this, we
think we can, and go for it.
Mr. Brubaker. Yes. I just--if I can add one additional
thing, though, I want everybody to be really clear that the
money that is designated for the UTC Program only represents a
portion of the work that gets done. Obviously you have got the
match issue, but frankly, most of the UTCs that I go to get,
collect a lot of additional money from Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, really the
Department of Transportation, as well as the private sector.
They do privately-funded activity that builds on that
foundation, whether it is an earmarked UTC or a competitive
UTC.
So, I mean, they have sort of stood alone, for the most
part they kind of stand alone and have their transportation
credibility, if you will. You know, they are--and I think that
is a relatively positive impact.
Now, there are other universities out there who are not
UTCs at all who get millions of dollars in federal money from
the Department of Transportation. I will give you a prime, you
know, Virginia Tech is one, for example. They do a lot of great
research, they get quite a lot of money from the Department of
Transportation as well as the private sector, and operate
outside of the UTC Program. The only issue that I have got with
that is I don't have the same visibility into what goes on
there as I do in the UTC Program as former RITA administrator.
Chair Wu. Well, as we look at this issue I do want to
capture the strengths of competition but recognize that we have
different missions to perform, whether it is research or
workforce development.
And also recognize that there are failed or imperfect
markets or competitive environments. In a country like ours it
is hard to criticize competition or merit review unless you
look at the history of how some of these organizations or
processes developed. And in the development of the science
establishment after World War II, it was dominated by a few
institutions, and into the '60s and '70s the peer review
mechanism shall we say was just far from perfect, because
people knew each other. People knew each other's work, so even
in a blind analysis of publications or grant proposals, you
knew whose proposals were coming through.
So, you know, any reconsideration of this has to take into
account the realities of whether a merit review truly is blind
or not, the multiplicity of functions ranging from personnel
development to applied research to fundamental research, and
sort of the shifting centers, the foci of research, you know,
who would have thought that Wisconsin would be a biomedical
research center 60 years ago. I am not sure that anyone would
have thought of that.
Those things need to be taken into account as we consider
this going forward.
I want to invite any of you who have any closing comments
to make, you all have traveled a good long distance, if you
have anything else to add to this process overall, I would like
to invite that at this moment.
Mr. Saenz--and I want to apologize to you as someone whose
name has been spelled out and mispronounced for a long time
myself----
Mr. Saenz. You pronounced it perfect.
Chair Wu. Oh, my gosh. You are very generous. Thank you,
sir. I think I have massacred it at least once or twice today.
Mr. Saenz. Mr. Chair, I think just going back and just
based on our prior topic about earmarks versus competition, we
at Texas thrive on competition. We think competition brings the
best of both the public sector and the private sector in trying
to solve problems.
I think one of the things that starts, with all things,
especially in the research program, is we need to have a
national plan. This national plan can be there to solve for,
not highway solutions or rail solutions or public
transportation, but we need to look at it as a whole to try to
identify how we solve those transportation issues. And it may
be a rail project, it may be a highway project or an aviation
project, inter-modal system, but we need to look at it as a
whole, having that one focus, having that one goal, that one
plan, and then be able to then look across lines and also at
the same time be able to figure out how you measure success
will lead to a better program.
Chair Wu. Terrific. Thank you very much.
If there is nothing else for the good--Mr. Brubaker.
Mr. Brubaker. Just briefly for the good of the order here.
I, first of all, I just want to commend you and the Ranking
Minority Member for your leadership on this issue. I think this
is really critical, and like I said in the opening, represents
a real tipping pointing in our ability to transform the
transportation infrastructure and make it more flexible and
responsive to our needs.
The one thing that, and you know this, this goes without
saying, and I don't want to minimize the complexity of this
issue, but at the same time I have been in Washington long
enough to know that when people use the word, complex, they
really mean can't be done, don't bother doing it, don't bother
breaking the rice bowls, don't bother breaking the stovepipes.
I firmly reject that. I think this is a very manageable
situation. I think we just need to look at it from a high
level. I think Mr. Saenz said it very well when he said, you
know, we need that plan. We need that holistic plan.
For example, you know, if we are thinking about how to best
move congestion at the ports, well, if you give that project to
the Federal Highway Administration, they are going to give you
a highway answer. You give it to Federal Rail Administration,
they are going to give you a rail answer. But it needs to be
some holistic answer, and I think the only organization within
the Department of Transportation that has the ability to focus
multi-modally and holistically is, in fact, RITA.
Lastly, I would just be remiss and as an ex-staffer I
always loved to do this, I want to thank Meghan and Mike and
Travis and Victoria for their help here, and as, and certainly
Shep, and Shep, I know it is your last day. We are really going
to miss you over at the Department, and really just appreciated
your service here. So thank you.
Chair Wu. You are good. You are good.
Anything else for the good of the order?
Well, I want to invite all of you to think--one topic I did
not get into at all today, and it--we will save this for--as a
topic of a future hearing, because it is a very big topic, and
that is green transportation, green infrastructure, and better
ways to plan and do things so that we are cognizant of the
footprint that we leave both today and in the future and
looking at our inputs as well as outputs.
And I want to commend that set of considerations to you all
because I know that many of you, or all of you have been
dedicated to that already and will have suggestions for us as
we go forward in considering the green transportation and green
infrastructure issues and as we go forward in developing a
research title for the Surface Transportation Bill.
I want to thank you all for appearing now this afternoon
and thank you for coming a good decent distance. The record
will remain open for additional statements from Members and for
answers to any follow-up questions that the Committee may ask
of you all. The witnesses are thanked and excused, and the
hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Paul R. Brubaker, Former Administrator, Research and
Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation
Questions submitted by Chair David Wu
Q1. You believe that a ``holistic'' approach to transportation
research is needed. How does that differ from the current approach?
What are the barriers that keep the Department of Transportation from
utilizing this holistic approach?
A1. The current approach to transportation research is modal-centric
and territorial. Research budgets are based on overall funding levels
and historical funding levels rather than actual need or value to the
overall transportation enterprise. This approach needs to be
fundamentally re-thought and the approach must not only be much more
multi-modal but must be integrated and enterprise-wide. That is, the
Department should be approving research in the strategic context of
what will add the most value to the national transportation system.
Additionally, some portion of research should look to new and
innovative approaches to transportation that do not fit nicely into one
of the traditional modal stovepipes. For example, there should be a
robust transportation-related alternative fuels component to research
as well as intermodal and multi-modal modeling and simulation. While
some of this activity exists within the modes today the activity is
modal specific.
Fundamentally the barriers that exist that prevent taking this
holistic approach are structural and cultural. The Department is
organized around ``modes'' when in fact passengers and freight often
use multiple modes to get from their origin to destination. We need to
think of passenger and freight movement more holistically and begin to
address challenges within the transportation system in this context.
When commuters come into work they often drive or take a bus to a train
station, board a train then may take a bus to their destination--
involving multiple modes. When freight moves it often uses short sea
shipping, rail and highways. Yet these multiple modes are hopelessly
stovepiped and do not focus on the most efficient way to move people
and freight in a holistic end-to-end manner.
This situation clarifies the notion that our national
transportation system is really a system of systems that are poorly
coordinated and are consequently not as efficient as they could be.
There are also Congressional jurisdiction issues that come into play.
For example, despite the fact that we move goods and people using
multiple modes--the authorization does not take into account these
multiple modes in an holistic manner. For example, if we could make
tradeoffs between investment in high speed rail and airport investments
in major cities it could result in obviating the need for building more
airport capacity and replacing it with a more environmentally friendly
high speed rail system--as well as result in taking a number of
vehicles off of the road that travel between city pairs. Yet the
separate authorizations between rail, air and road are not really set
up to address this holistic view. Moreover, the tradition of using
highway trust fund dollars to only support highway projects is
antiquated. We must think of the entire transportation enterprise--
whether it is the research program or the overall operation--much more
holistically.
The lack of this holistic, system of systems approach has also
resulted in missing some major issues and has perhaps even stifled
innovation. For example, the transportation system is dependent on a
cheap, abundant supply of energy. When the price of gasoline and diesel
fuel jumped up over the past summer--the Department was caught
completely off guard and unprepared. Naturally, vehicle miles traveled
plummeted and suddenly congestion was reduced. However public transit
ridership increased substantially and demand for Amtrak seats up and
down the Northeast corridor was at capacity. There was no modeling and
simulation capability within the department to even understand or
predict what would happen. The devastating impact this situation had on
the supply chain could have been entirely predictable if research and
information gathering activity was directed in a manner that better
understood the holistic condition of the passenger and freight movement
system performance rather than focused on the traditional needs and
narrow interests of the Department under its current modally focused
research and information gathering structure.
Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. You say in your testimony, ``currently, there is no systematic or
focused program, process, or set of activities that are driving
innovations out of the laboratory and onto our nation's roads, rails,
runways or waterways.'' In your opinion, what are the current
mechanisms for uptake of new transportation innovations? How could
these mechanisms be improved? Does this assessment hold true for
innovations in vehicle design and safety? If not, what are the
differences between vehicle and infrastructure improvements?
A1. The Department and research community within the Department
specifically has discussed technology transfer and many individuals
have that role in their job descriptions. Additionally, many programs
within the department like the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint
Program Office are required to consider technology transfer as part of
its mission. Within RITA the RD&T program has a technology transfer
role and the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration and other modes have key roles in driving innovation
into the transportation system. However there is not well organized,
systematic, enterprise-wide effort to drive innovation out of the
laboratory and into the transportation system.
If you were to ask the research community about technology transfer
they would suggest that the Transportation Research Board annual
meeting represents a major technology transfer activity as does
publishing research in peer reviewed journals. In my view, and this is
based on a general familiarity with technology transfer and
commercialization programs in major universities, research institutions
and states, the Department and transportation community does not do a
very good job of driving innovation into the transportation enterprise.
This is mostly because transportation research has been an inside
game--one that is managed and controlled by those with the biggest
pockets who do not see anything wrong with the current system or the
pace of innovation deployment.
Given the Department's almost $1.2 billion investment in research
each year, and by virtue of the fact that our economy requires rapid
deployment of innovation to maintain its competitive edge in an
increasingly competitive global economy--this somewhat casual approach
does not seem to make sense. Based on my experience, I would advocate
an office of technology transfer and commercialization be established
within the Research and Innovative Technology Administration that is
adequately resourced to monitor the research activity of the department
and highlight the intellectual property that is being developed for
opportunity to commercialize or transfer in a manner that would further
the state of research in a particular area.
You asked if my assessment of weak mechanisms for uptake of new
technology applies to vehicle design and safety innovation. The short
answer is yes but not because the mechanisms don't exist or don't
ultimately produce a result but rather because they are slow,
excessively bureaucratic and cumbersome. To be sure, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does a good job of
collecting data and statistics to support their recommendations--its
just the processes they employ and the timelines they find acceptable
are inconsistent with technology development cycles and tend to stifle
innovation and companies who desire to build, test and deploy safety-
related technologies. For example, when I left the Department we were
still waiting for NHTSA to validate that certain communications
technologies were appropriate to use in safety applications. This is
important work to be sure--but something we have been examining for the
last four plus years and it was going to take NHTSA two years to
complete its study. When technology improvement cycles follow 18 month
timeframes--it is difficult to see how these processes can support
timely and effective deployment of new safety technologies.
NHTSA does not like criticism. To be sure, they have presided over
many beneficial safety regulations and requirements and there are
people alive today thanks to the work of the agency. However, there is
room for improving research and how technology transfer, innovation and
commercialization in the vehicle safety area. However, any constructive
criticism or attempt to influence research in the safety area generally
results in turf warfare. Any attempt outside of NHTSA to suggest new
opportunities or processes related to safety generally elicits a
negative reaction--and the agency is great at working the office of the
Secretary--at least this was true during the last administration--so
that any criticism was met with the suggestion that any change these
processes or procedures will compromise the safety of the American
people. In other words, criticize the process you criticize safety--
when in reality these processes--particularly the safety benefit
validation processes--could be significantly improved to expedite
innovations into the field.
It might interest you to know that NHTSA carved out an exemption
from RITA oversight during the drafting of the Mineta Act. The
argument, as I understand it, was that the safety research conducted by
NHTSA was too important and critical to be subject to oversight by a
centralized research oversight organization. Frankly, this exemption
speaks to desire and ability of the agency to insulate itself from
criticism, oversight and review by hiding behind the safety mission.
Undoubtedly, the response from NHTSA will be that the roads are the
safest they have ever been. However, when more than 40,000 people die
on the Nation's road each year--roughly the entire population of Grand
Island, Nebraska--we should do whatever we can do ensure that the
latest safety technologies are deployed as quickly as possible.
Certainly there are differences in vehicle and infrastructure
research but they should not be artificially stovepiped as they both
represent individual systems in the holistic system. We should begin
looking at vehicles and infrastructure in a more integrated fashion--
particularly with the development of next and future generation
intelligent transportation systems when the vehicle and infrastructure
will become significantly more integrated. Before I left, we launched
the IntelliDrive initiative which envisions modern sensor and
communication technologies enabling an entirely new safety paradigm
that integrates vehicles with the infrastructure.
Q2. Do we need to produce a new, comprehensive strategy for our
nation's highways? If so, should this strategy include other
transportation modes? Who should be charged with developing such a
strategy and how often should it be updated?
A2. We do need a comprehensive strategy for not only out nation's
highways but an integrated strategy for the entire transportation
system--including how we fuel the transportation system. This
comprehensive strategy--I have called it holistic but I mean the same
thing--should include all of the modes of transportation--ships,
transit, highways, rail and air. The focus of the strategy should be on
how both freight and people move across the system with a keen
understanding and data regarding system performance. This would help us
better understand how people and good really move across the country
and where the bottlenecks and safety issues are in the system.
This strategy should be fact-based and contain analysis, business
cases and public benefit business cases outlining how projects and
programs will measurably improve the performance and/or safety of the
Nation's transportation system. This will require a robust and
modernized ability to collect, analyze and disseminate transportation-
related data. Currently, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics--which
is inside of RITA, does not have an adequate or complete picture of all
of the system and safety performance data that would be required to
support such a strategy--mostly because it is grossly underfunded and
does not have the data resources and personnel that would be needed to
develop such a comprehensive view and analysis of the passenger and
freight systems. In this same area, we also need to better understand
how the system responds to externalities--like natural and man-made
disasters, changing fuel prices and unexpected events. The Department
should have an organic capability to conduct modeling and simulation
around various policy, project or event scenarios.
The National Transportation System Strategy should be developed
collectively although the Secretary of Transportation should be charged
with developing the strategy and putting pen to paper. Congress could
and should propose a restructuring of the Department along the lines
suggested--although if nothing else could propose a commission to study
and recommend a new structure that better reflects the way people and
goods move across the country. I think this strategy should be
developed every year and reflect a rolling five year vision of where we
are going with the transportation system in this country--that lays out
the very clear priorities of the Department and drives investment and
alignment over the period. When I was at RITA we put together a forward
looking document called ``Transportation Vision for 2030'' which from a
thematic perspective could provide a useful construct--but the goals
should be bolder and the strategy should provide tactical guidance in
terms of organizational alignment and budget formulation and execution.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Elizabeth Deakin, Professor of City and Regional Planning;
Director, University of California Transportation Center,
University of California, Berkeley
Questions submitted by Chair David Wu
Q1. You recommended in your testimony that more research be subject to
``arms-length'' evaluations. Could you describe how many of these
evaluations are currently done and how you believe they should be done?
How would these evaluation processes be changed? How can this be
encouraged either by the DOT or by legislation?
A1. Arms-length evaluations of research are important for credibility
and can help target research dollars on the most cost-effective and
creative topics. Independent evaluators can be asked to point out
strengths and weaknesses in the research design, comment on the
reasonableness of proposed expenditures, evaluate the qualifications of
the researchers and their track records, estimate the contribution that
the research is likely to make, and identify whether the proposed
research is innovative or duplicates other past or ongoing research.
In the research community, peer review is the norm. Journals and
some university transportation centers use either double-blind or
confidential reviews and the reviewers are selected both for their
subject area knowledge and for their ability to provide a dispassionate
evaluation. In the most rigorously organized peer reviews, research
collaborators, former students and former professors, and anyone with a
close professional or financial interest in the outcome are
disqualified from participating in a review.
Peer reviews are not perfect--for one thing, reviewers often know
or can surmise the authors and vice versa, despite the removal of
identifiers, and big names and big institutions may sometimes be given
deference that the proposal might not actually deserve. Despite these
flaws, most researchers agree that outside peer review is the best way
we have devised for obtaining independent evaluations of research
proposals and products and reducing biases in the evaluations.
On the other hand, there is also a desire research to be relevant
to users, especially short-term, applied research that is expected to
lead directly to a deployable product. For this reason reviews by
outside researchers are often complemented by reviews or project
oversight by practitioners, industrial partners, and others with a
direct interest in the outcome. Such reviews and oversight are
especially helpful in raising practical questions about the utility of
a product, the size of the market for it, competing products and their
pros and cons, etc.
In addition to peer review and end-user reviews, strategies for
obtaining evaluations that can be of value in guiding research programs
include:
Using independent expert panels to generate research
topics, review research proposals, oversee research as it
proceeds, and review products. (This can be the same panel or
different panels at each step.)
Public agency and industry advisory committees, who
can bring user and researcher viewpoints into the evaluation
process while maintaining some intellectual distance.
Independence of the reviewers can be built into this process.
For example, some state DOTs enlist representatives of other
state DOTs and universities outside the state to evaluate their
research programs and major projects. Because panel members are
not competing for the grants, they are more likely to be
dispassionate than local reviewers might be.
NSF uses independent expert reviewers, and NAS committees
evaluating research and research needs are typically independent expert
panels. NCHRP and TCRP use stakeholder review panels to select and
review projects. USDOT also uses these methods for some of its
programs, but also does many reviews internally, in some cases because
there's a lack of resources to bring in outside reviewers. Many states
have research advisory committees, but for projects rely on internal
staff review and (sometimes) project advisory committees composed of
likely end users. The University Transportation Centers program calls
for peer review of research proposals and products but does not provide
much guidance on what qualifies as peer review.
Congress could mandate independent reviews by peers and end-users
for all major research programs (as well as for field tests,
demonstration projects, and other major projects) and provide funding
for such reviews as part of program costs.
Q2. Please elaborate on your comment that other countries, like EU
countries, Canada, and Australia, are ahead of the U.S. in terms of
developing a strategic outcome based plan for transportation research.
What strategic outcome metrics do these countries use? What have been
the impediments in the U.S. to utilizing a strategic outcome approach
and what can the U.S. draw on the experiences of these other countries
in developing its own national strategic transportation research plan?
A2. Transportation research would benefit from a mixed portfolio
including some long-term, basic research whose application is uncertain
as well as more applied research and development--some of which may
nevertheless be years from application, and some of which could be
implemented in the short-term and therefore should be coordinated with
transportation plans and programs in order to move R&D results into
implementation. Partnerships for implementation should extend not only
to federal and State transportation agencies but also to the many other
federal, State and local agencies, businesses and industries that have
roles in implementation of transportation projects or products or are
users of transportation products.
A study currently underway with funding from the Volvo Educational
and Research Foundation, involving researchers from Leeds University in
the UK as well as from UC-Berkeley, is examining the problem of moving
research from studies to actual use by investigating how innovative
cities and regions learn about innovations. Preliminary findings are
that loose networks of professional acquaintances are a principal way
for information on innovations to be transmitted among end users, and
that professional meetings and short articles in publications are more
valuable to professionals than are journals. Further, meetings that
cross disciplinary boundaries are more effective in transmitting new
ideas than are specialty conferences, which are better at developing
expertise than at spreading new ideas. Researchers use both formal
journals and their own networks to learn about new ideas and to share
them. The work suggests that an important way to speed up knowledge
transfer is to encourage participation in professional activities,
especially ones that can attract participation from multiple
disciplines and specialties.
In a related study just getting underway, UC-Berkeley researchers
are looking at ways that transportation, urban development, and
environmental agencies and foundations select and evaluate research and
disseminate research findings. While the study is just getting
underway, we have identified several good examples that could be
adopted by U.S. transportation agencies. For example, Sweden uses
international panels of experts to help evaluate its research agendas,
assess research progress, and advise on action items.
A second study reviewing transportation policies in Canada, the UK,
and Sweden, conducted by the Center for Global Metropolitan Studies at
UC-Berkeley, offer examples of best practices in prioritizing projects,
including research projects. The general approach is as follows:
1) Adopt national goals and objectives, along with performance
measures which track accomplishments. Typical goals for
transportation are improved access, efficient movement,
economic growth, environmental quality, and social inclusion.
For each goal, specific performance measures are identified and
agencies must measure and report their achievements.
2) Require horizontal and vertical policy integration:
National transport policies are required to be coordinated with
policies for other infrastructure, housing and urban
development (both urban redevelopment and new town programs),
economic development, and the environment. In addition, local
and regional policies are expected to be consistent with
national policies. Inter-departmental and inter-governmental
coordination mechanisms including joint committees and jointly
funded programs have been established to help achieve this
integration. In some countries policy integration is also being
accomplished in part through institutional restructuring:
Canada's and Sweden's national transport authorities lie within
broader ministries, the Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure
and Communities in Canada (created in 2006) and the Ministry of
Enterprise, Energy and Communications in Sweden. The UK
Department for Transport (DfT) is a stand-alone ministry but
transport plans must align with the umbrella land use (spatial)
plans at the local, regional and national level and local
transport plans are reviewed by the DfT for adherence to the
spatial plans and the DfT Smarter Choices campaign to lower
carbon emissions.
3) Align project selection criteria to national goals. Project
selection criteria are required to reflect the national goals,
objectives, and performance measures.
4) Provide information and incentives for government at all
levels as well as citizens and businesses to support and help
meet the goals. Funding programs, tax policies, and pricing
strategies have been revised to focus on achievement of
national goals and objectives. Programs have been funded to
encourage citizens and businesses to reduce their carbon
emissions, for example. In the UK, nationally sponsored
marketing programs are also underway to let people know what
they can do to reduce emissions.
5) Provide funding and create room for experimentation with
innovative strategies. For example, both the UK and Sweden have
used pricing to manage congestion in their largest cities,
London and Stockholm; in the Swedish case this experiment was
led by the national government.
6) Encourage public-private partnerships. Canada recently
established and funded an Office of Public Private Partnerships
as a component of the $33B multi-year Infrastructure Plan.
While these steps are largely aimed at aligning investment programs
and projects with national goals, research agendas have been developed
to help achieve the national goals and are being funded. In the U.S.,
such research agendas have sometimes been developed (e.g., the
Transportation environmental research program requested by Congress)
but there has been less consistency in connecting research expenditures
to either the research agendas or to national policy directives.
Q3. If UTCs were competitively awarded, what are the criteria that
should be used in the award and evaluation process?
A3. RITA currently requires that University Transportation Centers
report on their products in research, education, human resources, and
tech transfer. The specific criteria are:
1) the number of projects selected for funding
2) the amount budgeted for those projects
3) the number of research reports published
4) the number of research reports presented at academic/
professional meetings
5) the number of transportation courses offered
6) the number of students participating in transportation
research projects
7) the number of transportation degree programs offered
8) the numbers of students enrolled in those programs,
9) the number of transportation-related masters and Ph.D.
degrees awarded
10) the number of seminars, symposia, and other activities
conducted for transportation professionals and
11) the number of professionals participating in those events.
In addition, RITA requires centers to demonstrate the capacity to
manage the grant effectively, both in terms of business services and in
terms of a Principal Investigator who can provide appropriate
intellectual leadership.
These are straightforward performance criteria that can be used to
evaluate the productivity of the transportation centers or the capacity
of prospective centers to perform well. The 11 criteria focus on inputs
and outputs and hence are useful in measuring productivity. They are
easily and objectively measured. Even so, the meaning of the numbers--
what value to place on a high or low result--still requires
interpretation.
In addition, university transportation centers could be evaluated
based on outcomes or accomplishments resulting from these activities,
including:
1) extent to which research results have opened up new
research directions, led to new fields of study, and/or led to
new or substantially improved practices. including systematic
interdisciplinary approaches addressing emerging issues in
science, technology and multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional,
and/or public-private partnerships to improve implementation of
research results
2) percent of graduates in last five or 10 years who are
practicing in the field of transportation; number who have
risen to leadership positions in the transportation field
3) extent to which professional practice has changed in
notable ways as a result of technical assistance and tech
transfer activities.
These latter criteria are harder to measure and are more subject to
interpretation. However, they are the sorts of criteria often used to
evaluate quality and outcome changes. Independent peer review panels
are a common way to implement evaluations using such criteria.
Nascent groups would be placed at a disadvantage compared to long-
established centers of excellence if the focus is primarily on
accomplishments and resources already in place, and so it may be useful
to have separate criteria for new centers, such as the following:
1) a minimum of three regular/permanent (tenured or tenure-
track) faculty members whose teaching and research is primarily
in the field of transportation (or a university commitment to
hire such faculty members during the first two years of the
grant)
2) a university commitment to offer at least one degree
program with a formal, university-approved specialization in
transportation
3) transportation research funding of at least 20 percent of
the amount of the grant on average over the past three years or
a commitment of matching funds of at least 20 percent of the
amount of the grant for the period of the grant
4) evidence of current or proposed collaboration (extant and
planned) of major State, regional and/or local transportation
agencies and private sector organizations with an interest in
transportation, as evidenced by letters of support and
commitments for matching funds.
These criteria would also be useful in sizing grants to
institutional capacity.
Ouestions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. Your testimony suggests that one reason for limited adoption of
transportation technologies may be a lack of trust in the assessments
that are available. Can you describe what factors limit the credibility
of current assessments and can you give us an example of assessments,
perhaps in other research areas, that have been successful? What
actions would be required for transportation officials to restore their
trust in these assessments?
A1. Trust in technology assessments, and more generally in assessments
of the likely impacts of prospective investments, depends in large part
on how accurate past assessments have been. Many studies have found
that benefits have been overestimated and costs underestimated; the
pattern of error is not random. Technology assessments, travel demand
forecasts and cost estimates for new transportation investments (roads,
tunnels, bridges, rail projects) have been the subject of considerable
study in recent years, and scholars such as Bent Flyvbjerg and Daniel
Kahneman (among many others) have examined why forecasts and other
prospective assessments are inaccurate. Kahneman has identified
psychological factors leading to ``optimism bias'' whereas Flyvbjerg
believes that there is considerable ``strategic misrepresentation.''
Other factors including unforeseen changes or instabilities in factor
prices (e.g., fuel price fluctuations) also have affected the accuracy
of forecasts, of course, but these factors have been found to be
insufficient to explain the gap between forecasts and results.
Strategies that have been recommended for overcoming these problems
include:
Use of independent peer review committees as
evaluators. For example, both U.S. and EU universities call
upon outside panels of experts to review university programs.
Some transport programs in the EU also use peer reviews of this
sort to take an independent look at the justification for
proposed projects. While peer reviews are not perfect--
especially if peers are drawn from a ``club'' of associates--
awareness of their limitations has led to improvements in the
design of peer review teams, often by including international
experts, experts drawn from industry, and experts from a
variety of disciplines as part of the assessment team: people
with a bit more distance from the individuals and agencies
being reviewed.
Scenario testing is a method that acknowledges
uncertainties in key factors that could shape future markets
and opportunities. Scenario testing has been used in the U.S.
by several states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to
assess alternative urban development and transportation
investment packages and has been used by corporations such as
Shell to investigate energy futures as a function of, among
other things, public attitudes toward energy conservation and
the environment. The development of the scenarios is typically
done with multi-disciplinary expert panels, and in public
settings, with public involvement.
The UK Department of Transport has adopted a cost
estimation procedure, reference class forecasting, that
accounts for ``optimism bias uplift'' by adjusting costs upward
and/or demand forecasts downward, based on past experience with
similar projects. It is most easily applied when there are in
fact similar projects, and is not as easy to apply to unique
projects or new ideas that have not been examined before.
Focus groups are used to test consumer responses to
new products and options in relatively quick, inexpensive ways.
Other market research techniques that can help assess
technologies include stated preference surveys and consumer
panels that participate in repeated surveys and/or focus groups
over a period of time, sometimes several years.
Demonstration projects and field tests are ways to
further test markets but also to investigate implementation
barriers and opportunities. Demonstrations and field tests
often can be improved by including a wide range of stakeholders
in the design (so that all the factors that might affect
implementation are included). Third party, arms-length
evaluation of demonstration projects can be valuable in
reducing the danger of optimism bias (a risk if the evaluators
of the demonstration are also the proponents of the
demonstration) or too narrow a scope in the design and
evaluation of the demos and field tests.
Markets can offer a test of technology readiness,
risks and opportunities: is there a business plan for
implementation and are private investors interested in the
opportunities presented?
Q2. Do we need to produce a new, comprehensive strategy for our
nation's highways? If so, should this strategy include other
transportation modes? Who should be charged with developing such a
strategy and how often should it be updated?
A2. I see several reasons for a new, comprehensive plan for the U.S.
transportation system that is multi-modal.
First, we need to find an effective way to pay for the
transportation system. The highway trust fund is depleted, and changes
in vehicle and fuel technologies seem likely to make the gas tax
increasingly problematic. How to pay for both urban/metro and rural
highways needs to be considered in terms of emerging energy futures and
technology options. In metropolitan areas, how to pay for transit
services also needs to be part of the discussion. New technologies can
make paying for transportation fast, efficient, convenient, private,
and flexible, and multi-modal applications could be made available.
Second, we need to pay more attention to freight movements, which
are critical to the economy but also have high impact on the Nation's
transport systems. Truck and rail freight systems must link to each
other and to ports and airports more effectively. Better strategies are
needed to manage the heavy and often concentrated traffic impacts that
result from international trade through major ports. Freight movements
are inextricably linked to security concerns and technology
applications and better planning and management could yield major
improvements. A plan to pay for freight improvements equitably is also
needed.
Third, there are promising opportunities to reduce costs and
improve performance by implementing new technologies for applications
ranging from data collection to user fee collection to improved safety
and security, but these options need evaluation in the context of
ongoing investment programs and in comparison to more conventional
approaches.
Fourth, we might be able to have better, cheaper, faster
transportation services for both passengers and freight if we
coordinate across modes better. For example, it's increasingly
important to discuss whether we should be investing in truckways,
moving more freight to rail, or finding new truck-rail combinations for
freight movements. Opportunities for better service at lower cost could
result if we plan for and coordinate urban transit, conventional
passenger rail, and (in some cases) high speed rail with air travel
modes; rail could not only serve as an airport access mode but could
simultaneously serve a substitute for some short-haul air trips (as is
happening in the Boston-Washington corridor), and a commute option in
some markets.
MPOs currently prepare transportation plans that cover highways and
transit, and increasingly address freight within their boundaries. Some
states also have been developing strategic plans covering these
critical topics. It would be timely to evaluate the performance of MPOs
under the new responsibilities given them since ISTEA , to review State
transport policy, planning, and investment strategies over the same
period, and to look at how well states and MPOs are coordinating
investments and evaluating projects. Such a critical review and
assessment could be done in one to two years if mandated by Congress,
and could provide valuable information on best practices and needed
changes in practices. The resulting information would be extremely
valuable in shaping a new strategic plan for USDOT and the Nation, and
might offer new ideas on how to restructure categorical grants, create
incentives for cost-effective and high benefit investments, and make
better use of new technologies in transportation.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Amadeo Saenz, Jr., Executive Director, Texas Department of
Transportation
Questions submitted by Chair David Wu
Q1. In your testimony you described the benefits from the first
Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP). What benefits do you
envision from SHRP-2?
A1. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) envisions that there
will be benefits from all areas (Safety, Renewal, Reliability, and
Capacity) of the SHRP-2 Program. All are very significant issues in
Texas and around the country. I understand that an Implementation
Committee with quite a few ``high level'' people involved in
implementing technologies at their respective agencies has been
established. Although I am not an expert on the report, I am aware that
a Transportation Research Board Special Report 296, ``Implementing the
Results of the Second Strategic Highway Research Program'' has been
published. I am confident that Texas and the rest of the country will
be able to use the results to improve safety and maximize the benefits
of our transportation systems.
Q2. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) sets aside funds
for implementation of its research projects. Would you recommend that
the Federal Government consider an implementation set-aside for
transportation R&D projects as well?
A2. TxDOT recommends that the Federal Government consider an
implementation set-aside for transportation R&D projects. This set-
aside could be used specifically for actual ``demonstration projects''
around the country. This would enable it to be used for activities such
as training while capturing the additional costs associated with
implementing new technologies. It is also necessary to provide
assistance as needed and preparing implementation documents to maximize
the R&D findings. Since a lot of money is spent on research, it is only
responsible that we pursue cost effective implementation.
Q2a. What percentage of the TxDOT R&D budget goes towards
implementation and do you find that this is sufficient to fully
implement all successful research projects?
A2a. Roughly 15-20 percent of the TxDOT R&D budget is allocated towards
specific implementation projects. We follow up only a small percentage
of completed research projects with an implementation project since
many do not require one. Implementation can consist of activities such
as adopting a specification or new standard and incorporating
recommendations into our operating procedures as appropriate. I feel
the budget set aside specifically for the TxDOT implementation program
is sufficient because we incorporate that into the R&D project. Many
times the issues are overcoming other obstacles such as staffing and
the time and training requirement to prepare for a new technology. This
is ``new'' and most of our staff is already extremely busy dealing with
issues of the day and week.
Q2b. Also, in your experience, what is required for successful
implementation of R&D?
A2b. Successful implementation of research begins with conducting
excellent research projects applicable to TxDOT. Most of our investment
is applied research, meaning we have a specific problem we are trying
to resolve. As TxDOT considers implementation of research results, we
carefully monitor the research throughout the entire life of the
project. We set up the project to receive deliverables needed. For
example, if you need a specification, set up a specification as an
actual required deliverable.
Deliverables should be provided in ready to use formats to increase
the chance of successful implementation. Training may also be necessary
for employees that will have to implement a new technology. Perhaps,
one of the most important things we discovered is the agency has to
``own'' and ``champion'' the research. Within TxDOT, for example, the
Division responsible for the research results would then have to
incorporate them into their standards and operating procedures as
appropriate. Of course, we need to have the people and resources to
make this happen, which is one of the obstacles I addressed in my
testimony.
Q3. In your testimony, you noted that the USDOT could help states,
locals, and counties implement the results of research more quickly and
effectively if information and requirements for the new technologies
were provided in a ready-to-use format. What do you mean by ready-to-
use format?
A3. Ready-to-use format would mean an actual specification or standard
that could easily be adopted by State and local agencies. Another
example would be to distribute something similar to our Project Summary
Reports (sample attached) with completed federal research projects.
Q3a. What information do state and local transportation officials need
for implementation?
A3a. We believe that what would help State and local transportation
officials with implementation is to make readily available a brief
synopsis of completed research. For example, our Project Summary
Reports are limited to two pages and include information about the
following: (1) Background, (2) Research (3) Findings and (4)
Conclusions. This makes it much easier to determine how they might use
the research results. We also provide for our entire agency and local
communities all of our Project Summary Reports on the Internet.
Q3b. Why do you think the DOT does not already provide this type of
information?
A3b. The DOT does make this type of information available on some of
the projects. It just does not appear to be a consistent practice. We
are simply advocating the DOT have more consistent practices in
Research and Development in order to have the findings available for
the State and local communities.
Q3c. Can you provide some specific examples where the lack of usable
information slowed the deployment of new technologies?
A3c. While I do not have any specific examples of lack of usable
information slowing down the deployment of new technologies, there are
research results from the DOT and other states that we have not
implemented simply because we were not aware of the results and their
utilization. This responsibility of course rests on the State and
federal DOTs, lack of communication both ways can be improved. We need
to do a better job of ``scanning'' the provided information, web pages
and newsletters from TRB, RITA, FHWA, etc. While USDOT needs to do a
better job of distributing information to the right State and local
people.
Q4. You mentioned that there was resistance by contractors towards new
technologies. What types of incentives or aid did TxDOT use where TxDOT
was able to convince contractors to use new technologies? Do you think
a similar model would be successful at the federal level?
A4. We can classify incentives or aids that TxDOT has used to convince
contractors to implement new technologies and requirements into the
following categories: bonus/penalty in specifications, measuring
performance-related characteristics and giving contractors flexibility
to achieve them, provide tools to allow contractors to lower their
costs, and implement new quality monitoring programs to reduce impact.
All of these strategies include education and cooperation with the
contracting industry. There would be a significant advantage if a
similar model would be used on a federal level. See specific examples
below for benefits at a national level.
Bonus or Penalty in specifications
Development and implementation of Quality Control/
Quality Assurance Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete
specifications.
When we implemented QC/QA Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete
specifications in the 1990's, we included bonuses and
penalties for mixture characteristics that produce good
performing hot mix. We require contractor testing for
quality control and TxDOT testing for acceptance, all
with certified technicians. We worked with the Texas
Asphalt Pavement Association to develop certification
courses to insure that all technicians, both contractor
and TxDOT, were certified to perform the required
testing.
Implementation of Ride Quality Specifications for
Pavements.
TxDOT conducted research to develop ride quality
specifications in late 1980's and early 1990's.
Research showed that the public's top interests were
smooth roads and safe roads. Implementation of the
current iteration of the TxDOT ride specification
includes bonuses and penalties, giving contractors the
incentive to produce smooth pavements. Additionally,
specifications require certified profilers and
operators. TxDOT worked the Texas Transportation
Institute to develop and operate a certification
program for profilers and profiler operators.
Measuring performance-related characteristics and
giving contractors flexibility to achieve them
Implementation of HMA specifications to address
aggregate segregation, thermal segregation, and joint
density.
TxDOT originally developed specifications requiring
specific pieces of equipment (usually costly shuttle
buggies, etc.) to address these issues. These were met
with resistance on the part of contractors. Resistance
was reduced when we implemented testing to identify the
problems, but allow contractors flexibility to develop
``fixes'' on their own without requiring specific
pieces of equipment.
ASR Mitigation Options (Preventing Alkali-Silica
Reaction and Delayed Ettringite Formation in New
Concrete)
Research enabled TxDOT to add an 8th mix design
option and validated the previously existing seven ASR
mitigation options in our concrete specification. It
has been successfully implemented by giving the
contractor any of eight options for concrete mix
designs to choose from. Their choice is based on their
local materials, experience, etc., and been widely
accepted due to the flexibility given to the contractor
combined with the extensive training/awareness campaign
that we undertook.
Provide tools to allow contractors to lower their
costs
Low Coefficient of Thermal Expansion/Modulus of
Elasticity.
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement Standard
with reduced steel percentage (to address horizontal
cracking in Portland cement concrete pavements). This
process will begin to be used on projects by the end of
the summer of 2009. It will be presented to the
contractor as a cost-savings measure to utilize if the
materials he is providing for the concrete pavement
meet certain criteria.
Implement new quality monitoring programs to reduce
impact.
Implementation of the Superpave Performance Graded
Asphalt Binder specifications for use in all Hot Mix.
The Superpave Performance Graded Asphalt Binder
Specifications, a result of the Strategic Highway
Research Program (implemented by TxDOT in 1997)
involved a significant education and training program.
We used the FHWA, Asphalt Institute, Texas Asphalt
Pavement Association, and newly formed User/Producer
groups to educate contractors, asphalt suppliers, and
TxDOT personnel. TxDOT developed a new binder approval
program to address asphalt producers concerns that
Performance Graded Binder testing took longer to
complete. We now approve a binder supplier's production
instead of individual tanks as in the past. We give
monthly approval to ship product and perform ``check
sample'' testing at least weekly to monitor production.
Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. How are the research needs of State and local highway decision-
makers transmitted to federal research agencies?
A1. The main and perhaps most formal way that State and local research
needs are considered is through the various Cooperative Research
Programs managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). Each State
DOT is afforded this opportunity on an annual basis. At least some of
the various TRB technical committees collect research needs from their
committee members, who are from both State and local agencies. With
regards to transmitting our research needs to the Federal Highway
Administration, we are not aware of a formal mechanism.
Q1a. Alternately, how are the results of research performed with
federal funding transmitted to these independent, local decision-
makers?
A1a. All of our completed research reports are available on the
Internet so if a local agency needs information, they may be able to
access it through those means. The larger local agencies are typically
more in tune to some of these activities so it is easier for them. They
are also fairly familiar with our specifications and standards. The
smaller local agencies have, of course, different needs. They would
only be able to apply results from a small number of our research
projects. Our local TxDOT district employees have very good working
relationships with these local officials and often assist them with
some of their technical questions and needs.
Q1b. Do the research projects themselves need to be changed to meet
the needs of the local officials, or do the results of these projects
simply need to be communicated more efficiently?
A1b. We all need to do a better job of simply communicating the results
more efficiently, and perhaps more importantly, making this information
readily available and easy to find.
Q2. Do we need to produce a new, comprehensive strategy for our
nation's highways? If so, should this strategy include other
transportation modes? Who should be charged with developing such a
strategy and how often should it be updated?
A2. Not only do we need a comprehensive strategy for our nation's
highways, we desperately need a national transportation plan. This
national plan should not be limited to the highways but should include
all modes of transportation. We need to do more than mandate processes,
we need to establish goals and meet them. States are looking for
Congress to define a national strategy and provide the policy framework
that empowers states to set these goals, make decisions, and deliver
projects that implement the national strategy.
Transportation legislation should be consumer-focused and recognize
that Americans expect congestion relief, cleaner air, improved economic
opportunity, well maintained roads, and increased safety.
Transportation systems should be evaluated based on improvements in
performance standards and predictable travel times. Processes mandated
by law should be streamlined and harmonized to enable the delivery of
new transportation systems, not arrest their development. The national
strategy should be reviewed every few years to make sure it is still
viable and not just a place holder for transportation policy.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Executive Director, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies
Questions submitted by Chair David Wu
Q1. TRB will be issuing recommendations regarding research on climate
change mitigation and adaptation.
A1. The TRB Executive Committee has been proactive about addressing
transportation's role in climate change for some time. A self-initiated
study in 1997 was designed to raise awareness about highway
transportation's large and growing role in GHG emissions and to begin
debate about mitigation options.\1\ Another self-initiated study
completed in early 2008 addressed the potential impacts of climate
change on transportation; it includes recommendations for important
initiatives, research, and standards revisions to facilitate
adaptation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Special Report 251, Toward a Sustainable Future: Addressing the
Long-Term Effects of Motor Vehicle Transportation on Climate and
Ecology. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Washington, D.C. 1997.
\2\ Special Report 290. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S.
Transportation. Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies. Washington, D.C. 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q1a. What has prompted this new approach?
A1a. In reviewing the proposals being developed for surface
transportation research last summer, the Executive Committee noted the
absence of proposals addressing climate change mitigation and
adaptation. Hence, it initiated a fast-track project to develop
research program proposals for Congress to consider. The first drafts
of the background papers commissioned for that project have been shared
with your staff. This study is being conducted by a committee of
experts, who will use the revised drafts of these papers, other
relevant materials, and their own experience and judgment to develop
their findings and recommendations. The report is expected to be
complete in the August-September 2009 time frame.
Q1b. How much has FHWA spent to date on climate change issues?
A1b. FHWA provided an estimate that they have invested about $6 million
over the FY 1999 to FY 2006 time period on planning and environmental
research directly related to climate change. The USDOT total share of
the Federal Government-wide Global Change Research Program for 2007 to
2009 has ranged between $0.7 and $1.9 million, most of which is
attributable to aviation research by the Federal Aviation
Administration.\3\ Focusing only on FHWA R&D expenditures specific to
climate change, however, is misleading. Important areas of ongoing
research at FHWA are directly related to strategies for mitigating
transportation greenhouse gases. For example, the results of ongoing
traffic operations research, including ITS, to reduce congestion;
programs to encourage and evaluate road pricing strategies; and
improvements to regional travel and land use models will be quite
helpful in informing future policy choices and operational strategies.
FHWA research related to adaption will also be valuable. It has been
investing in bridge hydraulics research to better understand and
predict hazards from bridge scour, which may become more of a problem
in areas that become more prone to flooding in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Climate Change Science Program
for Fiscal Year 2009, A Report of the Climate Change Science Program
and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research: A Supplement to the
President's Budget. p. 232. http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/
ocp2009/ocp2009.pdf
Q2. TRB recommended that University Transportation Centers should be
competitively awarded. What specific evaluation criteria does TRB
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
suggest be used to evaluate and define a successful UTC?
A2. TRB has been involved in the UTC program since its inception, most
directly in its early years. The Board convened peer review panels to
assist USDOT in evaluating the initial applications of university
consortia in the late 1980s, and, subsequently, to review the third and
fourth year program plans of the centers. In 1993, TRB issued a report
requested by USDOT to help them assess the quality of the centers.\4\
Much of the advice in that report remains relevant, even though the UTC
program has grown from 10 to 60 centers and expanded its focus to
include education and training.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Measuring Quality: A Review Process for the University
Transportation Centers Program. Transportation Research Board of the
National Research Council. Washington, D.C. 1993.
\5\ Eight centers are authorized in Title III of SAFETEA-LU (the
transit title) and 52 are authorized in Title V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee convened to prepare Measuring Quality recommended a
three-tiered review process: (a) a program-level review to evaluate the
collective products of each center, (b) a center-level review to
evaluate the performance of individual centers and (c) a project-level
review to assess the quality of individual research projects and
courses. The committee noted that measuring quality requires making
subjective judgments about the value of programs and the quality of
products. It recommended reliance on review panels made of academicians
and professionals free of conflicts of interest. USDOT subsequently
required regular peer review of UTCs. The committee also recommended
the development of quantitative measures of output, such as the number
of students supported by and graduated from UTC centers and the number
of articles and the number papers on UTC-supported research published
in peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, and other scholarly
publications.
In its assessment of highway research, including the UTC program,
the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC) noted that a
more useful output measure of the UTC educational mission than the
number of students graduated would be the number placed in
transportation agencies and firms.\6\ The RTCC also reiterated the
value of reporting on peer-reviewed publications of research supported
by UTC funds. It noted that, whereas the UTC program requires that
centers be peer reviewed, these reviews are not shared beyond the
center. RITA's UTC program managers, at least, should have access to
such reviews as a basis of judging the quality of the centers funded
with federal aid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Special Report 295: The Federal Investment in Highway Research,
2006-2009: Strengths and Weaknesses. Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies. Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies. 2009, p. 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The intent of the committee's second question implies development
of criteria for the selection of UTCs through a competitive process.
Although most UTCs are not selected competitively currently, the UTC
program does have competitions for the selection of the 20 Regional and
Tier 1 centers. TRB has not been involved in these competitions in
recent years, so we are less familiar with current practice.
Presumably, the criteria in use derive from the goals of the UTC
program (multi-disciplinary education; human resource development
through undergraduate and graduate programs; diversity of student body
and faculty; center process for research selection; ongoing program of
basic and applied research; and technology transfer). Also important
would be the strength of the UTC proposed strategic plan and multi-
modal focus. Based on the work our committees, we would encourage
consideration of output measures such as the success in placing
students in transportation positions and track record of publishing
peer-reviewed research, as well as the strength of center advisory
committees. We would also stress the role of merit review involving
peers in awarding funds to UTCs through a competitive process.
Q3. TRB has consistently advocated that FHWA and DOT invest more in
long-term, advanced research. What is your assessment of FHWA's
Exploratory Advanced Research Program? Is this a model FHWA should
follow? What lessons can be learned from the program?
A3. The RTCC has, indeed, long advocated for more advanced research at
FHWA. In Special Report 261 issued in 2001, the RTCC recommended that
advanced research represent approximately 25 percent of FHWA's R&T
portfolio.\7\ SAFETEA-LU authorized $14 million annually for the
Exploratory Advanced Research (EAR) Program. The RTCC has,
subsequently, paid close attention to the implementation of this
program. The committee is very pleased that Congress authorized and
funded the program, and it views it as a genuine opportunity to expand
federal investment in advanced highway research. The committee,
however, is reserving judgment about whether the way FHWA has chosen to
administer the program is the most effective approach to advanced
research for the highway field.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Special Report 261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and
Technology, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
2001.
\8\ Research and Technology Coordinating Committee, Letter Report
of September 18, 2007. http://gulliver.trb.org/admin/blurb/
blurb-detail.asp?id=8152
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RTCC is pleased with the first round of research solicitations
though a Broad Area Announcement (BAA), which was wide open to good
ideas from across the spectrum of highway research topics. It is also
pleased that last year's technical corrections legislation changed the
local matching requirement for EAR projects from 50 to 20 percent. In
its 2008 report, The Federal Investment in Highway Research, 2006-2009,
the RTCC expressed some concern about the narrowing of topics in the
second round of solicitations and the share of funding for advanced
research projects devoted to intramural research (23 percent of the
funding allocated through 2008).\9\ Based on funds committed through
2008, the committee prefers that a larger share of the funds be devoted
to extramural research. (Subsequent projects may have been selected and
funded by the program, which the RTCC has not yet reviewed, so the
share to intramural may have declined.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See pages 91-92 of Special Report 295.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration and conduct of an advanced research program is
something new and exciting for the highway community, but it is one
that will take some time to develop and mature. Advanced research
requires a different approach than the highway research community is
accustomed to for research administration, stakeholder involvement,
research partnering, requests for proposals, contracting (statements of
work, deliverables), merit review, and tolerance for risk of failure.
FHWA, and the highway research community more broadly, is learning
about these features as the EAR program proceeds. The good signs so far
are a growing list of intriguing and promising projects, a much higher
proportion of research conducted by universities than is true for the
FHWA program in general, a new set of research partners adept at
advanced research, and FHWA's outreach to scientists and experts in
other federal agencies to assist it in merit review. Because the highly
applied, short-term research model is so well established in the mind
set of the highway research community, signs to watch out for are
whether the program becomes too focused on near-term deliverable
products and reliance on research organizations that have proven track
records in applied research but less so in advanced research. The RTCC
hopes that the EAR program will succeed and bring new understanding and
breakthroughs, but it is premature to judge whether the program's
current approach is the best model for the future.
Q4. TRB emphasized the need for performance-based metrics for
transportation R&D. Specifically, what should those metrics be?
A4. My written testimony mentions performance-based metrics only in the
context of the administration of the highway program, in which I was
attempting to point out the data issues that would arise from adoption
of a performance-based highway program,
``Proposals already circulating that address reauthorization
of the surface transportation program, including the reports of
both SAFETEA-LU commissions, recommend that the federal aid
program become performance based. A true system of performance
measures will create enormous new demand for better data on
inventory condition and value, real-time system performance,
safety, environmental protection, and other performance
metrics.''
This comment was meant to support the RTCC report recommendation
for additional support for data collection.
TRB has, and has had, committees providing peer review of the
research programs of FHWA, FTA, and FRA and for peer reviews of USDOT
strategic planning for research during the Bush and Clinton
Administrations. From this experience, we have become somewhat
circumspect about the prospects of developing and implementing
successful empirical performance measures of research and development
outcomes. It is, of course, relatively easy to develop and implement
output performance measures for short-term, highly applied research,
such as progress against milestones. This is widely done in both
government and industry and in programs managed by TRB, as described in
more detail below. We strongly endorse, however, the recommendation of
a National Academy panel convened to address the question of evaluating
R&D in response to the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA),
``The most effective means of evaluating federally funded
research programs is expert review. Expert review--which
includes quality review, relevance review, and benchmarking--
should be used to assess both basic and applied research
programs.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Evaluating Federal Research Programs: Research and the
Government Performance and Results Act. Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy. National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press,
1999, p. 5.
Our committees have tended to be circumspect about research outcome
performance measures for a variety of reasons: the need to have
different expectations across different areas of research, such as
policy, materials, ITS, safety; the long lead-time for basic research
results to find their way into products, technologies, and practices;
and the difficulty crediting individual research projects for outcomes
influenced by other research and other factors. It is much easier to
measure the impact of a materials research project that leads to a new
specification than for a policy research project that leads to new
understanding about travel behavior, but both outputs are important for
the advancement of the field. As a result, committees of the National
Academies have tended to place more emphasis on getting processes
right--appropriate stakeholder involvement, merit review, and peer
review of both projects and programs that help ensure achievement of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the desired outcomes.
Q4a. What are the performance metrics TRB uses for the Strategic
Highway Research Program (SHRP), SHRP-2, and any other research that it
funds?
A4a. Most projects undertaken in the cooperative research programs, the
original SHRP, or SHRP-2 are expected to yield products that will find
application in transportation practice, consequently TRB relies upon
review of the research it manages at both the project and the program
levels by committees that include practitioners as well as subject
matter experts. For SHRP-2 and the cooperative research programs, every
project is overseen by a panel of researchers and practitioners. Each
panel prepares requests for proposals, conducts a merit review of the
proposals received, and monitors the progress and outcomes of each
project. We rely upon these panels for quality review of individual
projects. Although the research reports prepared through the SHRP-2 and
cooperative research programs appear under the name of the authors of
the research, the results are only published by TRB if the panels so
recommend. These panel determinations are based upon such
considerations as whether the authors have been responsive to the
statement of task of the RFP and whether the quality of the work meets
standard practice. During the course of the research, the contractors
are required to report to the panel on progress against milestones,
including schedules.
At the program level, an ongoing review is provided by the
committees that oversee the research programs that TRB manages. For
example, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) is
funded each year by the voluntary contributions of each member state of
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). The projects are selected by AASHTO's Standing Committee on
Research (SCOR), which also makes the funding allocation decisions. At
the semi-annual meetings of SCOR, they are briefed on projects
completed and published, progress against milestones of individual
projects, and other metrics, including implementation, or usage, of
report results (see Appendix 1). NCHRP tracks the adoption of AASHTO
standards, specifications, and guidance that are based on NCHRP
research results.\11\ Also, the panels of completed projects are
surveyed every four years to find out about applications of the
research they oversaw.\12\ In addition, TRB monitors the diversity of
contractors selected. In 2008, NCHRP was subject of a benchmarking
analysis conducted by directors of State and FHWA research programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Leveraging Resources for Better Transportation. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program. Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies. 2002. See page 3 for a listing of the 40 AASHTO
specifications, guides, and other documents based on NCHRP research
over the previous decade. http://www.trb.org/NotesDocs/
NCHRPBrochure.pdf
\12\ http://www.trb.org/NotesDocs/NCHRPSurveyResults.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The funding and governance models vary from NCHRP in the Transit
and Airport Cooperative Research Programs (TCRP and ACRP), because
Congress authorizes these programs and appropriates the funds. The
governance of the programs, however, mirrors that of the NCHRP program.
A special committee of the American Public Transportation Association
(APTA) allocates funds and picks TCRP projects and a committee
appointed by the Secretary of Transportation provides the same
functions for ACRP. These governance committees also provide ongoing
program reviews. As does NCHRP, in addition to reporting on program and
project statues, TCRP briefs its oversight committee on products
adopted by APTA members and others (see Appendix 1 for examples) and
reports on periodic surveys of transit industry users of TCRP reports.
The Strategic Highway Research Program 2 is yet a different model.
Although AASHTO supported authorization of the program in SAFETEA-LU,
and the states agreed to fund it through Title I as a percentage take-
down of their federal aid for capital and maintenance, as directed by
Congress the oversight committee was appointed by TRB's administrative
parent organization, the National Research Council (NRC). (The NRC is
the operating arm of the National Academies.) This oversight committee
is made up of representatives of State DOTs, researchers, environmental
and safety groups, and other highway research stakeholders. As a fairly
``young'' program, SHRP-2 has few products to review to date. So far,
the oversight committee has been briefed on program and project status.
Moreover, in authorizing this program in SAFETEA-LU, Congress chose to
have it evaluated by the Government Accountability Office.
We believe that the determination of the relevance of the research
managed by TRB is built into the structure of these programs. The
decisions about what research to conduct is made by the oversight
committees themselves. The relevance of individual projects is further
ensured by having panels that include practitioners oversee each
project. In research programs such as these, another important measure
of relevance is the ongoing satisfaction of the organizations that
requested that TRB manage the research in the first place. NCHRP, for
example, has been in existence for over 40 years, and the states have
demonstrated their commitment to it through their annual, voluntary
contributions to fund the program. In all these years, only one state
has ever opted out, and it did so for only one year. The other
cooperative programs are much younger, and are funded through a
different mechanism, but both APTA and Airports Council International-
North America (ACI-NA), along with FTA and FAA, have demonstrated
strong support.
In response to a follow up question to your staff, we were asked to
indicate how TRB decides to begin or terminate research projects. As
indicated above, the oversight committees of the cooperative research
programs and SHRP-2 make all the decisions about project initiation.
Projects are occasionally terminated if the project panel overseeing
the project concludes that the contractor is not addressing the
commitments made in the agency's proposal or not providing quality
work. In the case of SHRP-2, contracts for higher-risk research
generally contain ``go/no go'' gateways which require the researchers
to formally demonstrate the feasibility and or the utility of the
research at an early stage in order to receive continued funding. The
decision to continue or terminate is made by the oversight committee.
Q5. How does TRB disseminate the results of the research it funds to
standards development organizations (SDOs)?
A5. As described above, the products of the SHRP and cooperative
research programs are expected to be applied in transportation
practice. Such application, however, is constrained if standards that
agencies can reference for design and contracting do not exist.
Therefore, the volunteer expert groups overseeing projects encourage
the research contractors to deliver materials that will directly enable
SDO development of new standards or the revision of existing standards.
For example, Superpave, a major product of the first SHRP now in use
throughout North America, is the systematic amalgamation of 26
different AASHTO standard specifications, test methods, and practices.
The initial data used for development of these standards was supplied
by the original SHRP research teams. Similarly the Load Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD) guideline for bridge design adopted by AASHTO
several years ago was preceded by a series of NCHRP projects addressing
a variety of different technical concerns of AASHTO's subcommittee on
bridges and structures. The Mechanistic-Empirical Design guidelines for
pavements, which has been endorsed by AASHTO and is being adopted by
states, was developed in the same manner. In both these cases, SCOR
embarked on a deliberate program of research to revise and modernize
these design guidelines. TCRP has also funded projects that have
resulted in transit standards, for example a TCRP project provided
technical information and resources that helped result in the adoption
of many IEEE electric rail passenger vehicle standards for system and
subsystem interfaces.\13\ TCRP also provided information to ASME that
led to ASME standards on light-rail vehicle crash-worthiness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ TCRP Research Results Digest 44: Consensus Standards for the
Rail Transit Industry. Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/tcrp/
tcrp-rrd-44.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cooperative programs often include members or liaisons from
SDOs when conducting a project that will provide information that may
be of use to the SDO that has responsibility for a standard. For
example, NCHRP panels have addressed issues such as traffic signal
visibility requirements and maintenance practices for LED traffic
signals, and have involved ITE members and staff in doing so because
ITE is the SDO for traffic signal heads.
While AASHTO, APTA, and ACI-NA have strong influence in selecting
TRB projects, other organizations also develop standards applied in
transportation. To ensure these organizations also have access to TRB
information that supports standards development, all reports of the
Cooperative Research Programs and SHRP-2 are posted on TRB's website
for free download. Completed reports are announced in TRB's weekly e-
Newsletter, which reaches more than 30,000 recipients.
TRB's Technical Activities Division has about 200 standing
committees made up of 4,000 individual practitioners and researchers.
This standing committee structure functions much like a professional
society. The mission of the standing committees is to bring
practitioners and researchers together to identify research needs,
stimulate needed research, provide input on research priorities and
procedures, facilitate the adoption of appropriate research findings
into practice, and provide a mechanism for mutual exchange of
information on social, economic, and technological developments within
transportation. The committees organize workshops, conferences, and the
sessions of TRB's Annual Meeting, which attracts over 10,000
participants. Many of the members of these committees serve on the
standards committees of organizations such as the ITE, American
Concrete Institute, AASHTO, APTA, IEEE, ASME and similar organizations.
The TRB's Annual Meeting is the world's largest meeting designed for
the sharing and dissemination of research information. Much of it finds
its way into the hands of SDOs.
Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. Do we need to produce a new, comprehensive strategy for our
nation's highways? If so, should this strategy include other
transportation modes? Who should be charged with developing such a
strategy and how often should it be updated?
A1. There has not been a Transportation Research Board (TRB) report
addressing Mr. Smith's important questions. SAFETEA-LU did call for two
major commissions to provide guidance to Congress on the future of the
highway program, particularly with regard to how it should be funded.
Both Commissions have prepared extensive and reports to Congress; The
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission provides
recommendations for a comprehensive, multi-modal strategy, and well as
recommending how such a strategy should be funded.\1\ The National
Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission provides
recommendations regarding funding the highway program.\2\ Funding
issues will likely be paramount in Congressional debates about
reauthorizing SAFETEA-LU, which expires at the end of September of this
year, as the authorized funding from the Highway Trust Fund in 2008 and
2009 exceeds available user tax revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission
Report, http://transportationfortomorrow.org/
\2\ National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing
Commission, http://financecommission.dot.gov/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a TRB committee was charged to address Mr. Smith's question
about developing a new, comprehensive strategy for our nation's
highways, it would need to consider the character of the current
highway program and whether it is meeting the Nation's needs as
currently structured. The federal highway program began in 1916 with
the first authorizing legislation and has been reauthorized and
reshaped from time to time over the last nine decades. Although the
program has evolved, particularly with the federal emphasis on the
Interstate program in the middle of the last century, it has retained a
federalist structure in which the Federal Government provides a share
of the cost of new and rehabilitated highways, while the states, and to
a lesser extent metropolitan areas, make the decisions about where and
how funds should be invested to serve urban, rural, and inter-city
passenger and freight travel demand. The states are also primarily
responsible for maintenance, enforcement, and safety and develop the
standards by which highway infrastructure is designed, constructed, and
operated. The federal program is a user financed system that is almost
completely funded by taxes on highway gasoline and diesel sales and
through commercial vehicle excise taxes. Authorizing legislation also
pursues federal environmental, safety, equity, and mobility goals
through provisions in the law; moreover the law provides and allows for
expenditures of about 15-20 percent of all user taxes paid by motorists
and motor carriers into the Highway Trust Fund for investments in new
transit capital. As noted in my original written testimony, the federal
investment in highway research and development is an absolutely
critical component of the innovation process.
Because federal highway funding as currently structured operates
something like a block grant to the states, there is no comprehensively
stated strategy per se, even though the law addresses many important
federal goals through its requirements and program funding categories.
For example, in addition to pursuing the goals listed above, the law
requires and helps fund metropolitan planning organizations to ensure
adequate investment in highway and transit programs within urbanized
areas. Thus, it is fair to say that whereas there is no single strategy
for the current program, there are many federal, State, and
metropolitan transportation and environmental strategies accomplished
through current legislation.
I provide this background in part to address the question of who
should be charged with developing a new, comprehensive strategy and how
often it should be updated. Clearly one option would be for the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) to assume a leadership role in any
such an endeavor in concert with states, metropolitan areas, and
highway and transit users. The USDOT has prepared such policy guidance
in the past in the form of major reports, often as a prelude to
reauthorization.\3\ The commission model is another option. Mr. Smith
may find that the report of the National Surface Transportation Policy
and Revenue Commission provides the comprehensive strategy he seeks.
Because the current program serves so many goals and has evolved over
decades to balance federal, State, metropolitan, highway and transit
and environmental interests, development of a new comprehensive
strategy would no small undertaking. It would not only reconsider
transportation goals, it would have to include reconsideration the
current intergovernmental institutional structure for carrying out
current highway and transit programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, for example, the last such report prepared by USDOT, The
Changing Face of Transportation. http://www.bts.gov/publications/
the-changing-face-of-transpo
rtation/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith also asks about whether a strategy should be multi-modal.
As noted, Congress has already incorporated transit into the highway
program by taxing highway users to pay the federal share for new
transit capital investments and by requiring and funding comprehensive
planning for urbanized areas. An open question is whether other surface
modes should be financed in this manner. We have not addressed inter-
city passenger rail for some time, but in a 1991 report, our study
committee concluded that subsidies for high-speed rail could be
justified in some corridors, but progress in doing so was stymied by
lack any dedicated mechanism for funding these subsidies.\4\ Current
highway and aviation trust fund legislation preclude subsidies for
inter-city rail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In Pursuit of Speed: New Options for Inter-city Passenger
Transport. Special Report 233. Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council. Washington, D.C. 1991. http://trb.org/news/
blurb-detail.asp?id=2690
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix: Examples of Usage of TCRP
and NCHRP Reports
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual: TCRP
Project A-15, produced a First Edition, Transit Capacity and
Quality of Service Manual, that was initially available as a
CD-ROM and on the TRB website as TCRP Web Document 6. In late
2003, TCRP Report 100, Transit Capacity and Quality of Service
Manual: Second Edition was issued, updating and adding to the
material provided in the first edition. Report 100 is a
fundamental reference document for public transportation
practitioners that contains quantitative techniques for
calculating the capacity of bus, rail, and ferry services, and
transit stops, stations, and terminals. It also provides a
framework for measuring transit availability and quality from
the passenger point of view. TRB established a Task Force on
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service that will manage the
transit manual much as a TRB standing committee has long
overseen revisions and expansions of the Highway Capacity
Manual. The University of Arizona, University of Idaho,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Portland State
University, and the Queensland University of Technology all
report incorporating the manual into transportation education
programs. In addition, all Metropolitan Planning Organizations
in Florida, at the request of the Florida Department of
Transportation, are assessing their transit systems using the
quality of service concepts outlined in the manual. Transit
agencies in Atlanta, Birmingham, Broward County (FL), DuPage
County (IL), San Antonio, New Orleans, Seattle, Washington
(DC), San Francisco, MTA New York City Transit, Adelaide
(Australia), and Dublin (Ireland) also report using the manual
for transit planning processes and quality of service
evaluations. AC Transit in Oakland reports that its Board of
Directors is currently reviewing the quality of their services
as they relate to the quality of service parameters in TCRP
Report 100. The National Transit Institute offers a course on
the material in the manual.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) reports
that it is using material from TCRP Report 100 in a new
textbook that they are developing, titled Professional
Transportation Planner (PTP) Certification Program Refresher
Course Handbook.
Transit Vehicles and Maintenance: TCRP Report 29,
Closing the Knowledge Gap for Transit Maintenance Employees: a
Systems Approach, addresses the maintenance skill supply, the
skill needs and effective training methods. It is very popular
with maintenance personnel, because it is ``down to Earth'' and
squarely addresses the technology, diagnostic, and skill
development issues mechanics are facing. The Transit Authority
of River City in Louisville, Kentucky, has given copies to all
of its maintenance personnel, and uses the report as a basis
for staff meetings and maintenance services delivery. Pierce
Transit in Tacoma, Washington, also used the report as part of
their maintenance team concept. It provides ideas for skills
utilization and performance measurement that are being
incorporated, with union support, into skills-based career
ladders. The National Transit Institute selected Report 29 for
a very successful teleconference seminar that featured
prominent maintenance managers in a call-in radio format.
TCRP Report 43, Understanding and Applying Advanced
On-Board Bus Electronics, is being used by Pierce Transit in
Tacoma, Washington, and other transit agencies to give staff a
better understanding of multiplex wiring and intelligent fleet
systems. A comment received on the APTA TCRP website states,''
this is a great report; a terrific help to understanding what
is going on, written at the level of the intelligent layman/
engineer.'' This report has become a basic primer for bus on-
board electronics.
Pierce Transit also reports that TCRP Report 25, Bus
Operator Workstation Evaluation and Design Guidelines, was used
to change the specifications for new coaches. Specifically,
they ordered smaller steering wheels and air-ride seats to
reduce driver fatigue. Also, a major North American bus
manufacturer advertises that its new driver workstation ``is
ergonomically designed to meet TCRP recommendations,''
indicating that Report 25 and its comprehensive companion, Web
Document 1, were used in the redesign of the bus.
TCRP Synthesis 2, ``Low-Floor Transit Buses,''
described the technology and issues associated with low-floor
transit buses as of January 1994. TCRP Report 41 updates
information on the current market for low-floor buses, and
provides a summary of operating experiences on the basis of
discussions with transit agencies and low-floor bus
manufacturers. Many transit systems have used this material in
their evaluations of low-floor vehicles for bus purchasing
decisions.
TCRP Projects C-12, Configuration Options Supplement
to Standard Purchase Specifications for Transit Buses, and C-
13, 30-Foot, Heavy Duty Bus Technical Specifications developed
standard bus specifications for different types of heavy-duty
transit buses using an industry consensus process administered
by the American Public Transportation Administration (APTA).
Specifications were prepared for the following buses: (1) 35/
40-foot, heavy-duty, diesel, low-floor; (2) 35/40-foot, heavy-
duty, compressed natural gas, low-floor; and (3) 30-foot,
heavy-duty, diesel, low-floor. In addition, generic
specifications for the bus operator workstation and on-board
bus electronics have been completed, and incorporated in the
bus specifications described above. These specifications are
available through APTA. Many transit systems are incorporating
the standard specifications in their bus procurement processes.
TCRP Report 61, Analyzing the Costs of Operating
Small Transit Vehicles, provides a User's Guide that explains
an accompanying Small Transit Vehicle Economics (STVe)
computer-based model. STVe is a tool designed for transit
planners and others making decisions about the purchase of
small transit vehicles for different services and operating
environments. The STVe is based on the principles of
engineering economics and allows the user to assess whether it
makes economic sense to invest in a particular type of vehicle,
based on user-defined inputs. The User's Guide describes how to
run the model and interpret the results. It also explores non-
financial aspects that may influence the vehicle purchasing
decision. A number of transit systems have indicated the use of
the report and its tool in their bus purchasing decisions.
Bus Stop Location/Design: TCRP Report 19, Guidelines
for the Location and Design of Bus Stops, provides guidelines
for locating and designing bus stops in various operating
environments. The Central Contra Costa Transit Authority
reports that it uses this report to assist them in making
recommendations for the location of bus stops to their member
jurisdictions.
Pedestrian Safety: TCRP/NCHRP Report 112/562,
Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings was
approved by the National Committee of the MUTCD. As a result,
the next version of the MUTCD will include changes in the area
of Pedestrian Beacon and Pedestrian Signal Warrant.
Standardized Railcar Systems: Transit rail operators
could save as much as $120 million as a result of the
development of uniform technical standards for rail vehicle
systems and subsystems. Through TCRP Project G-4, an Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Rail Transit
Vehicle Interface Standards Committee was formed as part of the
standards-development process. The Committee formed 15 working
groups to prepare standards for specific interfaces. In
addition, an American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Committee was formed to develop mechanical standards for
railcars. This ASME Committee focused on the structural
strength and crash-worthiness of light rail and rapid transit
cars. The standards, which should lower the cost of transit
railcars and replacement parts, reduce parts inventories, and
simplify maintenance, evolved through a consensus-building
process. The project involved significant in-kind contributions
by the transit industry, leveraging the TCRP investment by a
ratio of approximately eight to one. Under the TCRP project,
nine standards were formally published by the IEEE, and a
number of others were in various stages of production in 2002,
when the process was transitioned to APTA sponsorship. It has
been reported that SEPTA used a draft version of a standard
outlining communications-based train control (CBTC) performance
and functional requirements in its CBTC procurement document
for its light rail tunnel. The MTA NYCT has indicated that the
standards have helped them finalize technical specifications
for the procurement of more than 2,000 new subway cars. In
addition, New Jersey Transit reported that it would save
approximately $420,000 per year as a result of the use of the
IEEE standard for communications protocols aboard trains
developed by this effort. To date, the standards have been
cited in specifications issued by the Chicago Transit
Authority, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, MTA Long
Island Railroad, MTA New York City Transit, New Jersey Transit,
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. The
Illinois Department of Transportation also cited the standards
in their positive train control procurement project.
Rail Infrastructure Research: TCRP Report 57, Track
Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit, provides guidelines for
the design of various types of light rail transit track. Track
structure types include ballasted, direct fixation
(``ballastless''), and embedded track. The components of the
various track types are discussed in detail. The handbook
includes chapters on vehicles, alignment, track structures,
track components, special track work, aerial structures/
bridges, corrosion control, noise and vibration, signals, and
traction power. These chapters provide insight into
considerations that affect track design and require interface
coordination. A consultant reported that he had used the
handbook on LRT design projects in Baltimore and Tampa. In
addition, the Charlotte Area Transit System reported that it
used the report to review the design aspects of its planned
light rail system as they were developed by the system's
consultants. The Denver RTD also reported that the handbook was
used as the basis for designing its light rail extension. AREMA
Committee 12 is currently updating Chapter 12 of the AREMA
track standards for transit application. The committee is
drawing heavily from TCRP Report 57.
Fare Structures, Systems, and Technologies: TCRP
Report 80, A Toolkit for Self-Service, Barrier-Free Fare
Collection, addresses the full range of issues and parameters
that an agency must consider in determining the applicability
of self-service fare collection systems, including those
related to policy and enforcement issues, operational issues,
and capital and equipment issues. The Charlotte Area Transit
System (CATS) reports that this TCRP publication served as the
centerpiece for recommendations associated with establishing
regulations to address fare evaders, and other safety/security
matters associated with operating the barrier-free fare
collection system proposed for their light rail system.
Track Sharing: TCRP Report 52, Joint Operation of
Light Rail Transit or Diesel Multiple Unit Vehicles with
Railroads, identifies and discusses issues associated with the
joint operation of light rail transit (LRT) or lightweight
diesel multiple unit (DMU) vehicles with freight and/or
passenger railroads. For the purposes of this report, joint
operation is defined as co-mingled, simultaneous train
operation on shared track by railroad trains (freight and/or
passenger) and rail transit vehicles that are not fully
compliant with current Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
regulations. The report identifies and discusses issues
associated with such joint operation, focusing on the current
regulatory and institutional environment, railroad and rail
transit operations, infrastructure, and rolling stock. In
addition, substantial information concerning joint operation
overseas is presented and discussed. This report has been a
primary source of information to assist in the debate on the
issue of track sharing in the United States.
Public Transportation to Airports: TCRP Report 62,
Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports,
presents available data on the use of public transportation at
large U.S. airports and selected international airports, as
well as related evolving trends. The report provides examples
of successful airport access systems from around the world;
presents key factors affecting the use of public transportation
by airline passengers and employees; identifies new and
emerging technologies that have the potential to improve public
transportation services at airports; and describes the
institutional environment and factors affecting public
transportation at large U.S. airports, including airport
structure, funding for airports, and agreements with airlines.
This report has been useful to several transit agencies
investigating potential rail links to airports in their service
areas.
Evaluating Fuel Options for Buses: TCRP Report 38,
Guidebook for evaluating, Selecting and Implementing Fuel
Choices for Transit Bus Operations (C-8), provides information
on the performance, cost, safety, and facility requirements of
five transit bus fuels: diesel (baseline for comparison),
compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, methanol,
ethanol and liquefied petroleum gas. An accompanying cost model
spreadsheet, FuelCost 1.0, enables users to estimate and
compare the cost impacts of fuel choices. VIA Transit in San
Antonio used the software to aid them in selecting an
alternative fuel and in justifying the decision to their
management and Board of Directors.
Rural Transit: TCRP Report 54, Management Toolkit for
Rural and Small Urban Transportation Systems, identifies an
array of management principles and techniques, for use by small
urban and rural public transportation providers, to assist in
managing their transportation services more effectively. The
toolkit has two parts: a guidebook and a self-assessment tool.
The guidebook introduces the idea of customer-driven transit
service attributes and includes general management
philosophies. Included in the guidebook are exemplary practices
and ``how to'' instructions for some topics. Additional
sections describing ``rules of thumb'' or ``things to avoid''
are included for some management processes. A self-assessment
computer-based tool on disk accompanies the report. The tool is
designed to give the user a baseline or current picture of the
status of the transit system. The West Virginia Division of
Public Transit distributed copies of this report to all of the
rural operators in the state and also brought in the consultant
who produced the report to give a training session. The
Division of Public Transit indicates that the report, and its
accompanying tool, have been very useful to the rural operators
in West Virginia.
TCRP Report 70, Change and Innovation at
Rural and Small Urban Transit Systems, addresses the
culture for change and innovation, and presents more
than 40 initiatives and innovations implemented by an
array of organizations including public and nonprofit
transit systems, regional planning agencies, State
transit associations, and State departments of
transportation. The Southeast Missouri Transportation
Service reports that the report ``. . . has been a
valuable resource in improving our service.'' They have
used the report to ``. . . define our corporate
culture, and focus on our values, attitudes and beliefs
for the process of change.'' Also, ``. . . this report
has challenged us to be the best we can be and view
challenges as opportunities for new ways of doing
things.''
Bus Rapid Transit: TCRP Report 90, Bus Rapid Transit,
a two-volume set, identifies the potential range of bus rapid
transit applications through 26 case studies, and provides
planning and implementation guidelines for bus rapid transit.
The Charlotte Area Transit System reports that they found the
case studies in Report 90, Volume 1 very helpful as they were
preparing information on bus rapid transit to share with their
board. The Fairfax County (Virginia) Department of
Transportation reports that it has used Report 90 extensively
in the planning for a BRT system in the Richmond Highway
corridor of the county.
TCRP Report 118, Bus Rapid Transit
Practitioner's Guide, provides information on the
costs, impacts, and effectiveness of implementing
selected bus rapid transit (BRT) components. It
includes practical information that can be readily used
by transit professionals and policy-makers in planning
and decision-making related to implementing different
components of BRT systems. This report updates some of
the information presented in TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid
Transit and presents the latest developments and
research results related to the costs and impacts of
implementing various BRT components and their
effectiveness. The California Department of
Transportation (CALTRANS) indicated that they use TCRP
Report 118 as the basis for a course for CALTRANS
personnel, particularly highway/traffic engineers.
Purdue University notes that the material in Report 118
is used in a course covering bus rapid transit.
Transit Operator Fatigue: TCRP Report 81, Toolkit for
Transit Operator Fatigue, documents principles, techniques, and
strategies that can be used in the development of fatigue-
mitigation plans. The Toolbox includes a ``how to'' component
on the design, implementation, and evaluation of fatigue-
mitigation plans. An accompanying CD-ROM provides specific
tools, such as posters for operator rooms, that address fatigue
issues. The National Transit Institute (NTI) prepared a one-day
course on the report, and offered it at eight locations
throughout the country in the first half of 2003. The Santa
Clara Valley Regional Transportation Authority (VTA) in San
Jose, California reports that it has implemented many of the
tools in the report that were taught at the NTI training
classes.
The Image of Transit: TCRP Report 63, Enhancing the
Image and Visibility of Transit in the United States and
Canada, assists professionals at the local, regional, and
national levels interested in improving the visibility and
image of transit in the United States and Canada through the
implementation of image campaigns. The report documents and
presents how the image of transit can be strengthened by
building on existing positive perceptions. The research
provides a communications strategy to guide national, regional,
and local efforts to enhance the image and visibility of
transit in order to create a more positive and supportive
environment. The results of this effort are being used in
APTA's Public Transportation Partnership for Tomorrow (PT)2
program. It has also been reported that the results were used
in the development of marketing campaigns in Arizona and
Pennsylvania. Funding assistance for the Canadian element of
the research was provided, in part, by Transport Canada through
the Canadian Urban Transit Association.
Professional Capacity Building: Universities and
State departments of transportation have requested TCRP
materials, and sometimes the author, in support of training
courses. The New York State Department of Transportation
requested copies of TCRP Synthesis 22, Monitoring of Bus
Maintenance Performance, for use in state-level training. The
Pennsylvania Transportation Institute used copies of Measuring
Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality: A Handbook for the
Transit Industry in a course on customer service. The tools
from that report were utilized in Pennsylvania. Minnesota DOT
reported that Synthesis 30, ADA Paratransit Eligibility
Practices, was beneficial to the DOT staff and was frequently
requested by transit agencies in Minnesota. The author of TCRP
Synthesis 8, Retrofit of Buses to Meet Clean Air Regulations,
conducted six workshops on the subject at the request of
agencies striving to comply with the complex regulations. He
also conducted workshops for Florida DOT based on Synthesis 12,
Transit Bus Service Line Cleaning Functions.
The Civil Engineering Department at the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas developed a graduate course in transportation
using TCRP Reports 16, 27, 30, 33, 35, 36, and the CD-ROM on
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service as source materials.
Rutgers University is using TCRP Report 30, Transit
Scheduling: Basic and Advanced Manuals, and TCRP Report 100,
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual: Second Edition
in a course entitled Transit Management and Planning. The
course is part of the Master's program at Rutgers University
Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy.
Two products are especially useful to travel demand
forecasters:
--TCRP Report 95, Traveler Response to Transportation
Systems Changes: Third Edition will be published as a
19-volume report, updating a handbook last published in
1981. This handbook will equip members of the
transportation profession with a comprehensive, readily
accessible, interpretive documentation of results and
experience observed across the United States and
elsewhere of traveler responses to different types of
transportation system changes. To date, the first
thirteen volumes of this report have been published--
Chapter 2, HOV Facilities; Chapter 3, Park-and-Ride/
Pool; Chapter 5, Vanpools and Buspools; Chapter 6,
Demand Responsive/ADA; Chapter 9, Transit Scheduling
and Frequency; Chapter 10, Bus Routing and Coverage;
Chapter 11, Transit Information and Promotion; Chapter
12, Transit Pricing and Fares; Chapter 13, Parking
Pricing and Fees; Chapter 14, Road Value Pricing;
Chapter 15, Land Use and Site Design; Chapter 17,
Transit Oriented Development; and Chapter 18, Parking
Management and Supply. Remaining chapters will be
published throughout the remainder of 2008 as they
become available. The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority reports that it used Chapter 11 in
the development of its 2005 Marketing Action Plan.
Bloomington (IN) Transit reports using Chapter 3 in
discussing commuter parking lot impacts with adjacent
community groups. The University of Florida reports
that Chapter 15, Land Use and Site Design, has been
incorporated in a course being offered.
--TCRP Report 73, Characteristics of Urban
Transportation Demand, examines macro transportation
characteristics such as daily trips per capita, daily
trips by mode, average trip length, vehicle miles of
travel per household, trip chaining, and parking ratios
by type of work site. The final report provides a
compendium of multi-modal information for
transportation planners, provided in both printed and
electronic form.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
(SEPTA) human resources department indicates that they use the
following TCRP publications, among others, in their on-going
training programs:
(1) TCRP Report 27, Building Transit Ridership: An
Exploration of Transit's Market Share and the Public
Policies That Influence It
(2) TCRP Report 28, Transit Markets of the Future: The
Challenge of Change
(3) TCRP Report 77, Managing Transit's Workforce in
the New Millennium
(4) TCRP Report 88, A Guidebook for Developing a
Transit Performance Measurement System
(5) TRB Special Report 257, Making Transit Work:
Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United
States (funded through TCRP)
(6) TCRP Synthesis 16, Changing Roles and Practices of
Bus Field Supervisors
(7) TCRP Synthesis 40, A Challenging Employment
System: Hiring, Training, Performance Evaluation, and
Retention of Bus Operators
(8) TCRP Synthesis 45, Customer Focused Transit
(9) TCRP Synthesis 47, Corporate Culture as the Driver
of Transit Leadership
The American Planning Association is incorporating
material from several chapters of TCRP Report 102, Transit
Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences,
Challenges, and Prospects in their Transit Oriented Development
Planners Training Service course.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Highway and
Transportation Authority, Department of Public Works, Oversight
Systems Safety Manager, incorporates TCRP publications for
training at Tren Urbano.
Workforce Development Initiative. Two TCRP reports
have served as key inputs to APTA's Workforce Development
Initiative. TCRP Research Results Digest 45, ``Identification
of the Critical Workforce Development Issues in the Transit
Industry,'' provides a scoping study that identifies: the most
important challenges that the transit industry faces in
workforce development; current innovative approaches to
workforce development on the part of both transit agencies and
external ``benchmarks''; the most useful potential products of
the Workforce Development Initiative; and the next steps that
should be taken to help the transit industry address workforce
development on an effective, ongoing basis.
TCRP Report 77, Managing Transit's Workforce in the New
Millennium, assesses the transit industry's workforce needs and
prospects for the coming decades. Further, the report provides
guidelines to enable employers to assess the their own
workforce needs, describes best practices for recruiting and
retaining employees, and identifies ways to enhance or
establish partnerships between management and labor for
attracting, training, and maintaining a qualified workforce.
Transit Scheduling: Scheduling is one of the basic
skills in the transit industry. TCRP Report 30, Transit
Scheduling: Basic and Advanced Manuals, updates a 50-year-old
predecessor, providing step-by-step instructions in trip
building, blocking, run-cutting, and rostering. The report is
written in the form of a training manual, and has proved very
popular. The Metropolitan Transit Development Board in San
Diego requested copies for the scheduling staff. University and
state DOT staff have also requested multiple copies for use in
graduate level courses and for training staff: Institute for
Transportation Research and Education, North Carolina State
University; the National Center for Advanced Transportation
Technology, the University of Idaho; and the Oregon Department
of Transportation. SunTran (Ocala, FL) reports using Report 30
to train their schedulers.
Software for Transit Risk Managers: Identification of
risk exposure is the cornerstone of the risk-management
process, because the other elements of risk management rest on
the accuracy and completeness of this process. TCRP project G-3
developed risk management software and a User's Guide tailored
to the needs of transit risk managers. The software was
demonstrated at the 1996 APTA Risk Management Seminar and at
the 1996 APTA Annual Meeting. Copies were also distributed by
the usual J-1 distribution method. Through the TCRP J-1
project, APTA prepared the product for distribution,
professionally packaged like commercial software. Two companion
Research Results Digests cover identification of risk exposure,
risk assessment, loss control programs, and guidelines for
consistent collection of loss data. The Hillsborough Area
Regional Transit Authority reported that they have used the
software extensively to help identify potential risks.
Technology Transfer from International Experience.
TCRP Project J-3, International Transit Studies Program: The
International Transit Studies Program is a leadership
development program intended to foster a multi-modal-mobility-
manager approach to urban transportation. Participants in the
program bring innovative ideas from overseas to transportation
agencies in the United States. The Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority reported three major operational
changes as a result of staff exposure to new ideas from abroad.
The Blue Line was converted to single-person train operation,
saving over $1 million per year. Opponents of the change were
won over by the extensive documentation of European cities that
made successful conversions to single-person train operation,
by installing CCTV cameras on platforms as observed in Vienna,
and by engaging in a public outreach campaign. The MBTA also
introduced low-floor light rail cars and accelerated the change
to a new station management system supported by the integration
of automated fare collection equipment and security systems
based, in part, on the observations of the modernization of
older European transport systems to much safer, more secure,
customer friendly station environments. NJ Transit reported
that information gathered by staff who participated in a study
mission greatly increased NJ Transit's confidence in low-floor
light rail cars and helped support the decision to purchase
low-floor cars. Also information on transit's contribution to
livable communities in Europe was used as part of a transit-
friendly land use initiative in New Jersey. NJ Transit also
reported that information obtained in Europe about contactless
smart cards was evaluated for possible application in New
Jersey. At that time, European applications had gone beyond
testing to implementation. Riverside Transit reported that
information about integrated school and public transportation
in Europe assisted them with an initiative in the Los Angeles
area to demonstrate the feasibility of such integrated service.
She also reported that information about corridor preservation,
the use of art in transit, and strategies to improve livability
of cities were applicable to issues she was facing at home. The
London Docklands LRT is using moving block signal technology,
and American transit agencies that are considering this
technology found it reassuring to see that it works in practice
as well as in theory. Participants were also impressed with
improved transportation efficiencies achieved in Britain
through increased use of private contractors and increased
competition.
Low-Floor Light Rail Vehicles: A number of transit
systems, e.g., NJ Transit, SEPTA, and Santa Clara County, have
used a TCRP database on available low-floor light rail vehicle
(LFLRV) technologies and their characteristics as input into
the development of potential LFLRV specifications. The project
demonstrated, according to reports from Santa Clara County,
that LRVs with 70 percent of the floor area in low-floor
configuration minimize the risks associated with new rail car
design, because they use traditional trucks, but still provide
the advantages of a low floor for ADA compliance. This
influenced their decision to plan for low floor LRVs. Santa
Clara County staff estimated savings on the order of $20
million, attributable to not building expensive ramps for
access by the disabled. Low-floor vehicles accommodate disabled
persons, please the general public because the ramps would have
detracted from the architectural aesthetics of a downtown
transit mall, and save money. This was a win-win decision.
Alternative Fuel Safety: NJ Transit and several bus
manufacturers reported that they used TCRP Synthesis No. 1,
Safe Operating Procedures for Alternative Fuel Buses, as a
planning tool. One bus manufacturer reported that it made
copies available to staff to inform them of safe handling
procedures. At two conferences in Pennsylvania on alternative
fuel buses, sponsored by the Rural Transportation Assistance
Program (RTAP), most of the 35 to 40 attendees reportedly had
this document with them or had read it. The majority of
knowledge that these operations personnel had about alternative
fuels at this point reportedly came from TCRP Synthesis No. 1.
Fuels like methanol, compressed natural gas, and liquefied
natural gas have characteristics very different from diesel
fuel or gasoline and are dangerous if handled incorrectly. This
synthesis provided information on safe procedures for handling
alternative fuels.
Operational Savings: TCRP Report 4, Aids for Rail Car
Side-Door Operation, provides guidance on the safest ways for
the operator to observe door operation, thereby making it
possible to eliminate conductors in some circumstances. This
report was a key information resource for the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority (MBTA) during the conversion of the
Blue Line to a single-person train operation in 1996, saving $1
million annually. The report was submitted to the Massachusetts
State Legislature and the state regulatory agency during public
hearings concerning the initiative.
Standardized Light Rail Signing for Improved Safety:
A draft version of a new light rail chapter for the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) was prepared as part of
TCRP Project A-5, Integration of Light Rail Transit into City
Streets. The TCRP contractor worked closely with the LRT
Subcommittee of the MUTCD Committee on Railroad-Highway Grade
Crossings to incorporate a new LRT chapter into the Millennium
version of the MUTCD. The MUTCD is the document that contains
nationally accepted standards for roadway signing and
signaling, a critical element of traffic safety.
Track Maintenance Safety: A National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) report that was released in January 2008
referred to track-worker alert technology in its report on how
to prevent future track-worker incidents. That track worker
alert technology that NTSB referred to was developed and tested
in TCRP IDEA Project 55, ``Warning Device for Rail Rapid
Transit Personnel for Approaching Trains,'' and NTSB
demonstrated that technology at their public board meeting. The
IDEA project included testing of the technology at MTA New York
City Transit and the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit
Authority.
Reduced Visual Impact of Overhead Wire: The Greater
Cleveland RTA used the results of TCRP Project D-4, Visual
Impact of Overhead Contact Systems for Electric Transit
Vehicles, in planning an RTA extension. The findings of this
project were particularly significant, because citizen
opposition to overhead wire is one of the primary roadblocks to
LRT acceptance.
Transit Performance Measures: The Wisconsin DOT
reported that two TCRP publications were very useful in
reviewing transit performance measures and their use in
allocation formulas: TCRP Synthesis No. 6, The Role of
Performance-Based Measures in Allocating Funding for Transit
Operations, and The Quality Journey: A TQM Roadmap for Public
Transportation. The experiences of other states were found to
be particularly helpful. TRB documents were reported to be of
value in developing a long-range statewide transportation plan
and in providing guidance to the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations in the state. The Greater Cleveland RTA reported
that it used TCRP Report 88, A Guidebook for Developing a
Transit Performance-Measurement System, to assist in a review
of their performance-measurement system. In addition, LYNX in
Orlando, Florida indicated that it used TCRP Report 88 during
its 2004 strategic planning process.
Public Transportation Boards: TCRP Report 104, Public
Transportation Board Effectiveness: A Self-Assessment Handbook,
provides a self-assessment process and tools to measure public
transportation board effectiveness and provides references on
how board characteristics can be changed to improve board
effectiveness in various areas. The handbook also identifies
the characteristics of public transportation boards that
influence transit system performance. A number of transit
agencies, including the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART),
indicated that they implemented the board self-assessment
process developed in the report. The Small Urban & Rural
Transit Center reports that it is using Report 104 as part of a
2.5 hour presentation on the roles and responsibilities of
transit board members at the 2007 Dakota Transit Association
Conference.
Application of Artificial Intelligence To Railcar
Maintenance: A potentially cost-effective use of artificial
intelligence technology was identified to assist railcar
maintenance personnel in their diagnosis of railcar propulsion
system maintenance problems. TCRP Report 1, Artificial
Intelligence For Transit Railcar Diagnostics, recommended
testing the technology on the propulsion system, because the
potential for savings is the greatest. The project was
continued in order to conduct an operational test of the
concept. A successful demonstration was completed at the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. The results of
the demonstration are summarized in TCRP Report 44.
Commuter Benefits Programs: TCRP Reports 87,
Strategies for Increasing the Effectiveness of Commuter
Benefits Programs, and 107, Assessing the Costs and Benefits of
Commuter Benefits Programs, provide significant information and
guidance regarding the implementation of commuter benefits
programs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
indicated that information from these publications is being
used to document some of the impacts that might result from the
EPA's Best Workplaces for Commuters Program. In addition, the
contractors for Report 107 were presented with the 2005
Transportation Demand Management Institute Research Excellence
Award. This award is presented annually to the research project
noted for its substantial contribution to the field of
transportation demand management.
Transit Security: The Cambria County Transit
Authority (CamTran) in Johnstown, Pennsylvania reports that it
used the revised final report for Project J-10D, Security
Planning Tools for Rural, Small Urban, and Community-Based
Public Transportation Operations (to be published as Report 86/
Volume 10 in early 2006) to assist them in the development of
an Emergency and Security Plan that was required from the
Department of Homeland Security to receive security funds for
their Johnstown Inclined Plane. CamTran reported ``. . . the
TCRP document has been invaluable to us in providing structure
and direction in what we need to get it done properly . . .. We
have looked at many other agency plans and we have looked at
what FTA and FEMA has to offer and it is just overwhelming.
This TCRP document kept us on track and focused on what we
needed.''
SEPTA in Philadelphia reports extensively using TCRP
Report 86, Volume 8, Continuity of Operations (COOP) Planning
Guidelines for Transportation Agencies, as a valuable resource
in developing their internal continuity of operations plan. The
City of College Station, Texas, is using material from this
report to develop its COOP plan.
Florida DOT reports that it hired the principal
investigator of TCRP Report 86, Volume 10, Hazard and Security
Plan Workshop: Instructor Guide, to offer the workshop in
several locations statewide. Mississippi DOT has also made the
course available for its transit systems, both pre- and post-
Hurricane Katrina. The Texas DOT is conducting four workshops
around the state that are based on this TCRP report and its CD-
ROM. At one of the workshops, a participant indicated ``. . .
the things addressed were instantly applicable to our operation
at Citibus and for the first time since I got the
responsibility of our security plan, I felt like I learned
strategies that I could suggest for implementation.''
The Coast Guard reports that it is incorporating material
from TCRP Report 86, Volume 11, Security Measures for Ferry
Systems, in its training for new terminal pilots. The general
security measures (GSM) evaluation and selection tool included
in the report will also be included in a Coast Guard Navigation
and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC). Material from the
revised final report was also incorporated into internal Coast
Guard documents for its operational commanders.
The California Office of Homeland Security used material
from the TCRP Report 86 public transportation security series
(Volumes 1-12) in developing its internal policies and
procedures.
The Chicago Transit Authority reports that it has
frequently turned to reports from TCRP when analyzing security
issues and policies. They indicate that TRB is the first source
turned to when looking for reports on useful transportation
security practices.
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
See the following which gives examples of the impact of NCHRP
reports on practice. A series of such reports can be reviewed at this
link to NCHRP section of the TRB website: http://www.trb.org/CRP/NCHRP/
NCHRPImpacts.asp
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by David J. Wise, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Question submitted by Chair David Wu
Q1. What would GAO consider to be adequate performance measures for
evaluating the impact of the DOT RD&T investment?
A1. RITA's primary responsibilities include reviewing DOT's research
activities to ensure that research throughout DOT has been evaluated
according to best practices, thereby demonstrating the effectiveness of
RD&T investment. We recommended that RITA develop an overall strategy,
evaluation plan, and performance goals and measures for this and its
other coordination and facilitation responsibilities. RITA has taken
some steps to do so, but still lacks an overall strategy, evaluation
plan, and performance measures for its review responsibilities.
While evaluating RD&T impact is not an easy undertaking, it does
not have to be solely focused on gauging outcomes--since the outcomes
of RD&T often cannot be quantified in advance. The National Academies
and our previous work echoed that setting clear RD&T goals and
measuring their progress, using expert review to evaluate the quality
of research and outcomes, and reporting periodically in evaluation
results can help agencies systematically evaluate RD&T outcomes.\1\ One
approach that has been used in this area is to measure technology
transfer. For example, key experts and stakeholders told us that one
way that the Office of Pipeline Safety's RD&T program could be measured
is by the degree to which new technologies developed by the program
were actually used by pipeline operators. Similarly, according to a
RITA official, the Federal Railroad Administration measures the
performance of its RD&T activities by how many times RD&T programs are
used in real world applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Academies. Evaluating Research Efficiency in the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Committee on Evaluating the
Efficiency of Research and Development Programs at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2008) and GAO, Pipeline Safety:
Systematic Process Needed to Evaluate Outcomes of Research and
Development Program, GAO-03-746 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. Your report states that RITA has taken steps to develop
appropriate performance measures, including gathering information of
the operating administrations on their performance measures through the
RD&T Planning Team. You further state that RITA officials will
determine what measures could be adopted after all of the operating
administrations have had input. Do you know when RITA began these
meetings of the Planning Team and how often the Team meets? Has DOT
moved expeditiously to meet this requirement?
A1. In 2006, we recommended that RITA work with the operating
administrations to develop common performance measures for the
department's RD&T activities.\2\ RITA has taken some steps to do so.
According to a RITA official, in November 2008, the agency began
gathering information from the operating administrations on performance
measures during RD&T Planning Team meetings. The Planning Team is
required to meet quarterly, but has met more frequently. In 2008, the
Planning Team met 13 times, and the team has met twice thus far in
2009. A RITA official told us that they have finished the process of
gathering information on performance measures, and are analyzing the
information for commonalities and to determine whether any of the
measures could be adopted for the department's RD&T activities. We will
continue to monitor RITA's progress in developing and implementing
performance measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, Transportation Research: Opportunities for Improving the
Oversight of DOT's Research Programs and User Satisfaction with
Transportation Statistics, GAO-06-917 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15,
2006).
Q2. Overall, does GAO believe that RITA can successfully plan and
coordinate transportation R&D projects in-house and across the
Department? Is the RPIC process as currently operating sufficient for
these purposes? For instance, does RITA have access to data on the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
budget and performance of all R&D at the Department?
A2. The RPIC process began in fiscal year 2009 and has not been in
place long enough to assess whether it will enable RITA to successfully
coordinate, facilitate, and review the department's RD&T activities, or
enable RITA to develop an overall strategy. A RITA official told us
that they have begun the RPIC process using fiscal year 2009 planned
budget information (they do not have performance information at this
time) and plan to compare planned budget information to actual budget
information once the budget is enacted. While the RPIC process seems
like a step in the right direction, DOT has not yet documented this new
process or explained how it complements or replaces its existing
coordination and review strategies. According to a RITA official, RITA
is planning to develop a detailed description of the RPIC process and
hopes to have this completed by late spring. In our 2006 report, we
recommended that RITA develop an evaluation plan for its own
activities, so it could better assess whether its activities and
process, including RPIC, are meeting intended goals. RITA has not yet
developed such an evaluation plan.
Q3. Do we need to produce a new, comprehensive strategy for our
nation's highways? If so, should this strategy include other
transportation modes? Who should be charged with developing such as
strategy and how often should it be updated?
A3. We have reported that surface transportation programs need to be
re-examined, especially given the Nation's financial crisis and growing
congestion and travel demand.\3\ Since federal financing for the
interstate highway system was established in 1956 because of the
national interest in interstate mobility, the federal role in surface
transportation has expanded to include broader goals, more programs,
and a variety of program structures. To incorporate additional
transportation, environmental and societal goals, federal surface
transportation programs have grown in number and complexity. However,
the federal highway program's financing and delivery mechanisms have
not substantially changed and their continued relevance in the 21st
century is unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GAO, Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach
Needed for More Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs,
GAO-08-400 (Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of these programs are not effective at addressing key
transportation challenges such as increasing congestion and growing
freight demand because federal goals and roles are unclear, many
programs lack links to needs or performance, and the programs in some
areas do not employ the best tools and approaches to ensure effective
investment decisions. For example, most highway funds are distributed
through formulas that have only an indirect relationship to needs and
no relationship to performance or outcomes.
We have called for a fundamental re-examination of the Nation's
surface transportation policies. We identified a number of principles
that could help drive reexamination of federal surface transportation
programs and an assessment of options for restructuring the federal
surface transportation program. These principles include: (1) ensuring
goals are well defined and focused on the federal interest, (2)
ensuring the federal role in achieving each goal is clearly defined,
(3) ensuring accountability for results by entities receiving federal
funds, (4) employing the best tools and approaches to emphasize return
on targeted federal investment, and (5) ensuring fiscal sustainability.
With the sustainability and performance issues of current programs,
it is an opportune time for Congress to more clearly define the federal
role in transportation and improve progress toward specific,
nationally-defined outcomes. Given the scope of needed transformation,
it may be necessary to shift policies and programs incrementally or on
a pilot basis to gain practical lessons for a coherent, sustainable,
and effective national program and financing structure to best serve
the Nation for the 21st century.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement of Lawrence H. Orcutt
Chief, Division of Research and Innovation
California Department of Transportation
This testimony is intended to address the following four questions
posed to the Division of Research and Innovation, California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans):
1. How has the federal investment in R&D through the UTCs,
NCHRP, SHRP II, etc. impacted current infrastructure
construction practice?
2. What barriers prevent adoption of new techniques or
applications?
3. How can the Federal Government ensure that State, county,
and city decision-makers make informed decisions (i.e., LTAP)?
4. Is the current workforce capable of implementing advanced
highway technologies?
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Lawrence Orcutt. I am the Chief of the Division of
Research and Innovation for the California Department of
Transportation, also known as Caltrans. Thank you for the opportunity
to provide you with this written testimony.
The Division of Research and Innovation (DRI) receives $10-15
million per year from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to fund
the State Planning and Research Program, Part 2. In addition, in 2008
Caltrans was notified of receiving $10-15 million in federal grants
through various competitive processes that include Safe Trip-21:
Connected Traveler (Research and Innovative Technology Administration),
Vehicle Assist and Automation (sponsored by Federal Transit
Administration), Augmented Speed Enforcement (sponsored by the Rural
Safety Initiative-FHWA), and a Truck Parking Initiative grant to fund a
project along the Interstate 5 (I-5) Corridor (sponsored by FHWA).
I serve on the Transportation Research Board's (TRB) Strategic
Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP 2) Safety Technical Coordinating
Committee, and I am the Co-Chair for the TRB Technology Transfer
Committee. I also serve on the Research and Technology Coordinating
Committee (RTCC) that serves as an independent advisor to FHWA and
other research organizations on national and federal highway research
that has been supported by FHWA.
Innovation is one of the four core values that guide and shape
Caltrans, and staff is empowered to seek creative solutions and take
intelligent risks. Caltrans has the largest and one of the most
vigorous research programs in the Nation. Mr. Randell H. Iwasaki, Chief
Deputy Director for Caltrans, provided testimony to your subcommittee
in June 2008 about some of the nationally significant infrastructure-
related technologies that Caltrans has developed such as, long-life
pavement rehabilitation strategies, and rapid rehabilitation strategies
(Construction Analysis for Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies). I will
be providing more detailed information about these two innovations
later in my testimony.
Caltrans has been focused on deploying research results to achieve
true innovation so that research becomes reality. Through the guidance
of the Caltrans Research and Deployment Steering Committee and by
establishing a deployment group that is responsible for developing and
implementing research deployment strategies, Caltrans has become a
leader in transportation research deployment. Examples of some of the
challenges and solutions to research deployment are included in my
testimony.
One of the most significant issues facing California and the Nation
is the need to develop and implement transportation innovations. In the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act--A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Congress recognized the importance of
innovation per the Principles for Research based on Title V:
``The federal portfolio should cover the full innovation
cycle, including the following:
Agenda setting,
Conduct of research,
Support of research and technology transfer by the
states,
Sharing of results, and
Deployment (including education and training).''
In the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee, TRB Special
Report 295 it is recommended that:
``Adequate resources should be provided to FHWA to support a
robust program for dissemination of research results to states,
local governments, and private vendors.''
Congress had the excellent foresight to require an implementation
report for SHRP 2. ``As part of SHRP 2 authorization, Congress
requested that a report be delivered in early 2009 concerning promising
results from the research and how they could be implemented most
effectively. In response to this request, the TRB's report Implementing
the Results of the Second Strategic Highway Research Program: Saving
Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life outlines what it
will take to implement the results of the program and reap the benefits
it promises.''
The recommendations listed in the report are very consistent with
the Caltrans focus on deploying research results to achieve innovation:
``A SHRP 2 implementation program should be established and stable and
predictable funding should be provided over several years to support
SHRP 2 implementation activities.''
The legislative recommendations from the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) developed by the
Standing Committee on Research also requests resources for research
deployment:
``Legislative Recommendations Summary: Initiation of a new
Research Deployment Program, funded at $5 million annually.
Policy Issue Discussion/Background:
Research products are difficult to deploy into practice. Many
reasons contribute to this, and many are documented in the
NCHRP Report 442, Systems Approach to Evaluating Innovations
for Integration into Highway Practice. One of the most
significant reasons hindering the deployment of a research
product is a lack of a focused national program with resources
to identify and share the most successful research deployments.
A program should be established that facilitates the
deployment of successful research products. This program should
be multi-modal and conducted under the guidance of stakeholders
who are the ultimate users of the research. The program would
develop and implement project deployment plans, communications,
and demonstration activities. The program should be able to
advise and assist stakeholders with unique implementation
problems, such as intellectual property, feasibility studies,
cost benefit analysis, and ease of implementation.''
The Federal Investment in Highway Research, 2006-2009: Strengths
and Weaknesses--Special Report 295 makes an excellent argument for
implementing innovation:
``The challenges facing the highway system cannot be addressed
simply by spending more money, even if doing so were possible.
Funding for highways is currently constrained by the sharp
draw-down in the federal highway trust fund and a general
unwillingness to raise fees or taxes that support
transportation infrastructure. Successfully addressing many of
the challenges discussed above will require new and more
efficient ways of doing things--new materials, better and
faster construction techniques, safer designs, better
information for drivers, new financing mechanisms, options for
pricing use of the system, and many more. This is the role that
research, development, deployment, and training must fill. ``
QUESTION 1. How has the federal investment in R&D through the UTCs,
NCHRP, SHRP II, etc. impacted current infrastructure construction
practice?
OVERVIEW
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) built and
oversees a 78,000 lane-kilometers (lane-km, or one lane, one kilometer)
State highway system. Much of that system needs repair. Rebuilding our
transportation infrastructure affects all Californians as well as our
national economy and global commerce. Much of our problem focuses on
meeting the challenge of how to rebuild deteriorating highways
economically, safely, and with minimal impacts and inconvenience to the
public.
Cutting-edge pavement research at Caltrans and the University of
California has been helping find ways to rebuild our highways. Pavement
research methods and findings have potential use on other projects. For
example, results from traffic studies in work zones are available for
research and deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
Also, results may help improve pavements at ports and railheads. The
state-of-the-art research tools are also adaptable to local agencies to
use in improving city streets and county roads. In this way, results
from Caltrans research are better able to produce benefits for all
Californians and all Americans.
BACKGROUND LONG LIFE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION STRATEGIES (LLPRS)
The three examples I will describe, all stem from the Caltrans
Long-Life Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies (LLPRS) Program which
began in 1998. The goal of the LLPRS program is to rebuild
approximately 2,800 lane-km of high-volume urban freeway with pavements
that are designed to last more than 30 years with minimal maintenance.
LLPRS also addresses the State's need for cost-effective approaches for
rebuilding the aging pavements in its urban highway networks. The LLPRS
program will reduce the need for future repair projects and ultimately
save public resources for future generations of road users.
LLPRS candidate projects were selected from among highways that
experience minimum volume demands of 150,000 Average Daily Traffic or
15,000 Average Daily Truck Traffic, and that have poor structural
pavement condition and ride quality. Most LLPRS candidate sections are
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavements on Interstate freeways in
urban networks, 80 percent of which are within the Los Angeles Basin,
and 15 percent of which are in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Caltrans has been working with the Partnered Pavement Research
Center (at the University of California, Berkeley) since 1994 using the
Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) and Accelerated Pavement Testing to
develop new pavement products for infrastructure improvements. In 2005,
Caltrans approved an issue memo titled, ``Adoption of Mechanistic-
Empirical (ME) Pavement Design Method,'' which calls for the adoption
of ME pavement design methodology to replace existing pavement design
methods which have been in place since the early 1960s. Since 2000, the
University of California Pavement Research Center (UCPRC) has been
supporting the Caltrans effort to adopt ME pavement design by using a
wide array of tools, including HVS full-scale pavement tests. This work
is under the technical guidance of the Caltrans Pavement Standards
Team. One of the Team's tasks is to develop and calibrate ME flexible
pavement design and models for new pavements and rehabilitation. These
models have been incorporated into a draft software program called
CalME. The validation and calibration of the models in CalME was first
performed using performance data from HVS tests completed by the UCPRC
between 1995 and 2004. Calibration of CalME models also has been
achieved using WesTrack performance data.
The following are three Caltrans LLPRS projects:
1. LLPRS Pilot Project: Interstate 10 Concrete Rehabilitation in
Pomona
In February 2000, a 20-lane-km rehabilitation project on Interstate
10 near Los Angeles, California, was successfully completed. Fast
setting hydraulic cement concrete was applied because it reached
traffic opening strength in only four hours after its placement. The
project required one weekend closure to complete 2.8 lane-km and
repeated seven and ten-hour nighttime closures for the remaining
distance. The rehabilitation project consisted of replacing the
existing 230 millimeter concrete slab with new concrete, dowels, and
tie bars. The contractor used a concurrent working method in which
demolition and concrete paving occurred simultaneously and only a
single lane was removed and replaced.
The delivery and discharge of concrete controlled the overall
progress. The 55-hour weekend closure proceeded at a rate 54 percent
faster than the average of nighttime closures, as measured by number of
slabs replaced per hour. A comprehensive traffic management strategy
helped to reduce the volume of traffic during the weekend closure and
minimize the traffic delay through the construction work zone.
This ``proof of concept'' LLPRS project, which used concrete
material, was followed by another project using asphalt materials.
2. LLPRS Demonstration Project: Interstate 710 Asphalt Concrete
Rehabilitation in Long Beach
Caltrans successfully rebuilt a 4.4-km stretch of Interstate 710 in
Long Beach, California, by adopting a fast-track construction approach
that included around-the-clock (24/7) operations. The project proved
that fast-track rehabilitation with 55-hour weekend closures is
effective to drastically shorten overall construction time and lessen
the negative effects of construction in an urban area. This eased
congestion for the public, as well as freight moving to and from the
ports of Long Beach (the second busiest port in the United States) and
Los Angeles.
The project proved that asphalt concrete pavement designed to
provide a 30+ year design life can be constructed in a series of
weekend closures even on the most heavily loaded truck route in the
state. This long-life asphalt concrete pavement rehabilitation project
occurred during the summer of 2003. On this project, either 230
millimeters of asphalt concrete overlay or 325 millimeters of full-
depth asphalt concrete replacement were applied during eight 55-hour
weekend closures. After five years of monitoring, the pavement is
performing as predicted by research and pavement tests conducted for
Caltrans by the UCPRC.
3. LLPRS Implementation Project: Interstate 15 Concrete Rehabilitation
in Devore
Fast-track rehabilitation and reconstruction innovations have been
researched and deployed in California. One example is the heavily
traveled Interstate 15 corridor in Devore, California. A 4.5-km stretch
of badly damaged concrete truck lanes was rebuilt in only two 210-hour
(about nine days), extended closures using counter-flow traffic and 24-
hour operations. The same project would have taken ten months using
traditional nighttime closures.
Compared to traditional ten-hour nighttime closures, the extended
closure had about 80 percent less total closure time, about 30 percent
less road user cost due to traffic delay, and about 25 percent less
Caltrans cost (about $6 million savings) for construction and traffic
control.
Specific innovations adopted for this groundbreaking ``Rapid
Rehab'' project include the following:
Automated Work Zone Information Systems to update
travelers with real-time travel information
Quickchange Movable Barrier system with a dynamic
lane configuration to minimize traffic disruption
Incentive/disincentive provisions to encourage the
contractor to complete the closures on time
Multifaceted outreach program and web-based
information systems for disseminating project updates and
getting input from the public
Mix design of rapid strength concrete to enable the
project to be opened to traffic 12 hours after placement.
RAPID REHAB
One significant R&D product that is changing planning and
management of highway construction across the country, specifically
pavement rehabilitation projects, is Rapid Rehab. Rapid Rehab, also
known as Construction Analysis for Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies,
or CA4PRS, is a software package that was developed by the UCPRC with
funding from DRI. CA4PRS aids engineers and contractors in selecting
economical highway rehabilitation strategies that minimize disruptions
to drivers and to the surrounding community. It identifies optimal
construction management strategies that balance construction schedules
with traveler inconvenience while minimizing agency costs by
considering ``what if'' scenarios for variables such as construction
time windows, number of lanes to be closed, material selection, and
site access for construction vehicles (16).
Rapid Rehab Development, Testing, and Implementation Progress
CA4PRS was developed outside of the normal Caltrans Information
Technology (CIT) development process using a Transportation Pooled Fund
project with the States of Washington, Minnesota, and Texas
participating in the pooled fund effort.
CA4PRS was first tested in 1999 in a construction project along a
stretch of Interstate 10 near Pomona, east of Los Angeles, California.
Data from that project validated CA4PRS simulated production rates and
impacts on traffic. Before the work began, the contractor's estimate
for a 55-hour weekend production rate was 3.5 lane-km. CA4PRS' estimate
was 2.9 lane-km. Actual performance came to 2.8 lane-km (17).
The second major construction project was on Interstate 710 near
Long Beach in Southern California in 2002. The original construction
plan called for ten 55-hour weekend closures. However, encouraged by an
incentive provision of $100,000 for each weekend closure eliminated,
the contractor used CA4PRS and finished the job in eight consecutive
closures instead of ten and claimed a $200,000 bonus (18).
The third major project was in 2004 along a 4.5-km stretch of
Interstate 15 near Devore in Southern California. Original construction
schedule called for 10-month nighttime-only closures. However, using
CA4PRS proposed scenario, this badly damaged concrete stretch was
rebuilt in two single-roadbed continuous closures (also called
``extended closures'') totaling 210 hours, using counter-flow traffic
(opposite direction to the main traffic flow) and 24-hour-per-day
construction operations (17).
The AASHTO Technology Implementation Group in 2006 designated
CA4PRS as a ``priority technology'' because CA4PRS proved to be a
valuable time and money saving innovation.
In 2007, CA4PRS was nominated and earned the International Road
Federation Global Road Achievement Award for the Research Category.
CA4PRS is also included on the FHWA Priority Market-Ready Technology
list. During a recent ceremony with the Director of Caltrans, the
question was asked, ``Why aren't we using this tool on all of our
projects?'' Caltrans is working to make CA4PRS part of the standard
design practices for all projects.
At the national level, Caltrans has been working with FHWA to
assist other State Departments of Transportation in the purchase of the
licensing rights through the Highways for Life Program. The University
of California has established a cost of $150,000 for all states to be
allowed exclusive rights to use CA4PRS. The current cost for a state to
purchase a CA4PRS enterprise license is $5,000, which is relatively
inexpensive.
Conclusion
Through partnering with University of California researchers,
Caltrans used innovative technologies to begin rebuilding California's
infrastructure. These examples show pavement improvements being made in
California that both improve how pavements are designed and built, and
also help to manage the construction impacts to traffic by considering
work windows that allow contractors get the work done quicker, cheaper,
and with better quality. The overall construction cost savings total
more than $20 million for the LLPRS program using the new technologies
developed by this research program. Rebuilding America's infrastructure
will require new methods and technologies similar to those developed in
California using federal research funding to develop products that will
improve our transportation products and services.
QUESTION 2. What barriers prevent adoption of new techniques or
applications?
INTRODUCTION
In the transportation world of the 21st century, many challenges
are created by inadequate resources needed to address today's massive
transportation problems of congestion, failing infrastructure and
environmental impacts of transportation, most notably worsening air
quality and climate change. Innovation should, and could lead to
improving the performance, efficiency, and quality of the
transportation system as well as reducing their environmental impacts.
Innovation is much needed to manage the enormity and complexity of
transportation system. As noted in the TRB Special Report 261,
``complexity of the transportation challenges underscores the need for
new ways of looking at problems and for innovative solutions, offering
significant research opportunities in all facets of the highway
sector'' (1).
COMMON BARRIERS TO INNOVATION
Different types of innovations face different obstacles. The more
radical or disruptive an innovation is, the more challenges will
accompany its acceptance and implementation. A thorough literature
search (particularly the 2001 TRB Special Report 261) (1) helped the
department to identify six major barriers to innovation in
transportation as summarized below.
1. System Diversity and Complexity
The United States Transportation system is diverse, decentralized,
and multifaceted. Conflicting public and private sector incentives add
to such complexity (1). Fragmentation, disagreement among public works
constituencies, and competition among public works categories for
scarce resources have combined to constrain innovation (7).
2. Intellectual Property and Procurement Restrictions
The public sector procurement practices impose constraints on
innovation (1). Public sector procurement activity is driven by low-bid
process based on specifications and procedures established to satisfy
the need for open competition and accountability (7). Competitive
bidding requirements represent a core problem because often certain
innovations are offered by a single company. Conflict between open
public bidding processes and private Intellectual Property (IP) rights
can hamper deployment of innovative products (9). Excluding evaluation
contractors from implementation contracts can limit competition at the
deployment stage (8).
3. Risk Aversion
There is notable low tolerance for risk in the public sector (1).
Public sector decision-makers work in an environment that does not
reward risk taking. If public officials are uneducated about or
unfamiliar with the potential of innovative technology or uncertain of
its merits, they are reluctant to adopt it (7).
4. Resistance or Inability to Change
Organizations limit and resist change (1). ``When optimal
resolution of a product or process performance problem demands a very
different set of knowledge than a firm has accumulated, it may very
well stumble'' (10). Lack of training and unskilled employees often
inhibits technological change (8).
5. Lack of Profit Motives
Public sector innovation is not subject to the profit motive that
stimulates commercial innovation (7). Disruptive technologies are
``initially embraced by the least-profitable customers in a market''
(10). Companies that let customers identify only new products that
promise greater profitability and growth ``are rarely able to build a
case for investing in disruptive technologies until it is too late''
(10).
6. Lack of Product Evaluation Criteria
It is often difficult to characterize and predict system and
component performance of new innovative products (1). New product
evaluation guidelines are slow to develop and are often under-resourced
(8). Evaluation requirements are sometimes unclear or not defined (9).
At the Caltrans it is particularly difficult to get business cases for
Information Technology products approved through the extensive and
cumbersome Feasibility Study Report process imposed by other regulatory
agencies (8).
THREE MAJOR CALIFORNIA CASE STUDIES
Recently, Caltrans completed research and development of three
technological innovations the implementation of which covers a wide
spectrum of barriers in encountered in new transportation technologies.
I. SensysTM is a revolutionary traffic sensing innovation that
combines latest communications in roads and highways technologies that
was implemented in an evolutionary manner.
II. Rapid Rehab (also known as Construction Analysis for Pavement
Rehabilitation Strategies, CA4PRS), is a strategic and tactical
planning, and control software innovation that is being implemented in
an evolutionary fashion.
III. Balsi Beam is an evolutionary safety hardware innovation that
needed revolutionary approach to implementation.
Although these innovations promised significant return on
investment, deployment of each faced numerous and significant
challenges that delayed implementation.
I. SENSYSTM CASE STUDY
SensysTM is a compact, self-contained, easy-to-install, highly
reliable, low cost wireless traffic sensor system that can replace
traditional, more expensive inductive loops. The Sensys concept
originated through the Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways
(PATH) Program, at the University of California, Berkeley (UC-Berkeley)
through a special research program in 2002 dedicated to exploring new
ideas. Through Caltrans' DRI, the program provided up to $25,000 for
one-year research proposals strictly intended to test or demonstrate
new ideas and concepts.
The $25,000 Sensys proposal was to investigate the potential use of
a new wireless detector that could collect similar traffic data
collected by wired inductive loops that have been in use since 1960.
The research proposed to investigate the use of micro electro-
mechanical systems (MEMS) acoustic sensors, a prototype of which was
developed earlier in the Department of Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science at UC-Berkeley under a previously sponsored Defense
Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) project. Researchers proposed
to test how well the MEMS sensor network would detect traffic in urban
streets and parking lots and determine how effectively these sensors
can operate in an urban traffic environment, and how much spatial and
temporal resolution can be achieved (11).
The Sensys research proposal was approved and Caltrans, which
allowed the researchers to explore and test the concept within one
year, provided, seed money. During the research, the researchers
switched from the initial detection technology (acoustical sensors) to
magneto-resistive sensor. They also redesigned the system's protocol to
increase communications efficiency and reduce energy consumption (12).
The first Sensys prototype was ready for testing in 2003.
SensysTM Roadblocks
Two of the main barriers that the implementation of the new Sensys
system faced emerged at the testing stage. There was no funding
allocated for testing and there were no criteria with which to evaluate
its effectiveness. Other roadblocks faced by Caltrans include:
1. Lack of Funding to Explore Brand New Concepts
To mitigate this barrier, DRI created a small ($25,000) and limited
(one-year) research grants to investigate and test new ideas.
2. Lack of Functional Requirements, Specifications, and Evaluation
Criteria
To mitigate this barrier, DRI commissioned the California Center
for Innovative Transportation (CCIT) at UC-Berkeley to perform an
evaluation and that also performed a supplemental evaluation using
comparable criteria.
3. Lack of Provider Credibility
To mitigate this barrier, DRI assured end-users that Sensys was a
reliable product backed not only by the manufacture but also approved
by Caltrans.
4. Resistance to Change and Risk Aversion
To mitigate this barrier, proactive communication was pursued
through reports and informal discussions. DRI recruited champions at
Caltrans' Division of Traffic Operations who sanctioned the testing.
5. Sole-sourcing Contracts
To mitigate this barrier, DRI had relied on performance-based
specifications.
Lessons Learned
Caltrans has learned several important lessons in this case.
1. Logical Evaluation Criteria must be established in a Timely Fashion
to Evaluate New Products. Customer-approved key performance indicators
must be identified and performance must be measured with reasonable
resources. It was learned that, in order to establish credibility,
testing performance standards for new products should be as rigorous as
or more rigorous than performance standards for existing products.
2. Using a Systems Engineering Approach is Necessary. Using principles
of systems engineering, functional requirements should have been
specified and used instead of promotional product descriptions. In all
cases, a company trying to meet the client's requirements must clearly
understand the process for getting the product approved for use by the
client (12).
3. Intellectual Property (IP) can be Handled through the University
System. Intellectual property was not an issue with this innovation
because the IP was handled through the University of California's IP
licensing process. Nonetheless, this required a substantial effort by
Caltrans to get the approval of the California Department of General
Services to allow the University to own the IP developed by the
University research that was funded by Caltrans.
4. Innovation needs Champions. The importance of innovation champions
was a critical factor for the successful deployment of Sensys.
Professor Varaiya, inventor of Sensys at UC-Berkeley, believes that
acceptance of Sensys in California by Caltrans will establish
confidence in Sensys and pave the way for other markets to deploy the
product (15).
II. RAPID REHAB (CA4PRS) CASE STUDY
Rapid Rehab is described previously under Question 1 as part of the
LLPRS program.
CA4PRS Roadblocks
The AASHTO Technology Implementation Group in 2006 designated
CA4PRS as a ``priority technology.'' Despite this and the fact that
CA4PRS proved to be a valuable time and money saving innovation, it had
its share of roadblocks. CA4PRs was developed outside of the normal
Caltrans Information Technology (IT) development process using a
Transportation Pooled Fund project with the States of Washington,
Minnesota, and Texas participating in the pooled fund effort.
1. Compliance with Caltrans IT Standards. In order for CA4PRS to be
accepted and allowed by Caltrans IT to become standard Caltrans
software (and for Caltrans users to install it on their computers), an
extensive benefit-cost analysis justifying the acquisition of the
software for Caltrans had to be conducted and an extensive and
cumbersome Feasibility Study Report (FSR) had to be completed.
Completing the FSR for CA4PRS was extremely time-consuming,
complicated, difficult, and frustrating process.
Soon after the CA4PRS FSR was completed and after CA4PRS was
incorporated into Caltrans Technology Standards list, a new deployment
roadblock emerged. CA4PRS software needs to be installed on each
engineer's computer individually. According to Caltrans IT protocols,
individual installation of software requires the work to be performed
by Caltrans IT staff. Caltrans' IT staff was not able to perform the
installation work in a timely manner for the many users. As a result,
many engineers gave up on using CA4PRS altogether.
2. Need to Learn How to Market New Technologies. Marketing of
technology is critical for its success because often the information is
available, but it requires too much effort to find. Marketing
successful results of research by going out to the customers is a
proactive approach that Caltrans has used to ``push'' this technology
out to users. Caltrans has learned that producing a report that resides
on a web page or in a library is not an effective way to deploy
innovation.
3. Resistance to Change and Breakdown in Bottom-up Communications.
Public institutions prefer stability and routine and are resistant to
change. Caltrans had to be proactive in pushing the new technology. DRI
used champions at staff and management levels throughout all stages of
deployment to demonstrate the merit of this software. Briefings were
provided to key decision-makers to support this innovation.
4. Lack of Profit Motive. It was necessary to demonstrate the concrete
benefits of Rapid Rehab to Caltrans staff as well as private
contractors. Establishing the savings in support costs is very
important to Capital Outlay Support managers, and this information
helped make decisions that supported the use of CA4PRS. Construction
and traveler delay cost and savings were documented and shown to
benefit Caltrans, the contractors, and the general public.
5. Risk Aversion and the Need to Establish Credibility for New
Products. Seeking national and international recognition for innovative
research is a strategy that DRI has used to build credibility for
CA4PRS within Caltrans at management and staff levels. In 2007, CA4PRS
was nominated and earned the International Road Federation Global Road
Achievement Award for the Research Category. CA4PRS is also included on
the FHWA Priority Market-Ready Technology list. DRI used CA4PRS in
pilot studies that demonstrated its success. DRI won credibility for
CA4PRS through winning national and international recognition.
6. Software Licensing Issues. The University of California has
established a cost of $150,000 for all states to be allowed exclusive
rights to use CA4PRS. The current cost for a state to purchase a CA4PRS
enterprise license is $5,000, which is relatively inexpensive.
Nonetheless, many states were unable to get the approval from their own
IT departments to acquire the software for reasons similar to the
Caltrans experience. To alleviate the financial burden that other
states may have in acquiring CA4PRS, Caltrans took the initiative and
has been working with FHWA to assist other State DOTs in the purchase
of the licensing rights through the Highways for Life Program.
7. Need for User Training. Finally, lack of training is an impediment
to using CA4PRS. Therefore, Caltrans, in cooperation with UC-Berkeley,
has established a training curriculum. So far over 700 people have been
trained to use CA4PRS. This includes approximately 100 users from other
states.
Lessons Learned
The most important lesson learned includes the needs to do each of
the following:
1. Be flexible and resourceful. Although the FSR was difficult to do,
DRI used it to as a way to document the benefits and costs of CA4PRS.
2. Manage product licensing.
3. Demonstrate the value of innovation.
4. Have innovation champions.
5. Minimize implementation cost. Caltrans used Highways for Life
Program to help other states purchase CA4PRS.
6. Train users professionally. It was learned that without a
curriculum and training plan, this innovation would not be used.
III. BALSI BEAM CASE STUDY
Protecting the safety of construction and maintenance field crews
and motorists on roadways has long been a top priority for Caltrans.
More than 40,000 people are injured each year in the United States of
America as a result of motor vehicle crashes in work zones. Fatalities
from work zone crashes have increased by more than 50 percent between
1999 and 2004 (19). In 2004, the cost of a fatality was estimated to be
$1,011,000. The cost of a critical injury was estimated to be $858,000
(20).
Balsi Beam is an innovative mobile work zone protection system that
was envisioned by Caltrans Division of Maintenance staff. The Balsi
Beam is named after Mark Balsi, a Caltrans landscape worker who
suffered major injuries when he was working along Interstate 280 in
Santa Clara County, California in January 2001.
The Balsi Beam system is basically a tractor-trailer combination,
with a specialized trailer that extends into a thirty-foot long work
space in between the rear axles and tractor, shielded on one side with
two steel beams'' (21). The trailer provides an extendable steel
barrier to protect workers on traffic-exposed flank of a work zone.
The Balsi Beam was designed and built by Caltrans' Division of
Equipment. The Caltrans bridge crews utilized the Balsi Beam to protect
their workers. The Balsi Beam would not be deployed today without the
support of the bridge crew from Caltrans district staff Marysville,
California.
Balsi Beam Roadblocks
The deployment of Balsi Beam has faced several technical,
logistical, and institutional roadblocks that included the following:
1. Lack of an Established Evaluation Criteria and Customers'
Uncertainty about the Effectiveness of Balsi Beam. It is difficult to
get maintenance crews to use a new product like the Balsi Beam. In the
opinion of the inventor, Balsi Beam is not ready for national
deployment because it is still a prototype. In her opinion, Balsi Beam
will prove its effectiveness when it is actually hit and saves lives
(22).
2. Customers' Lack of Familiarity with Balsi Beam Capabilities. The
complex logistics of introducing a new tool into existing processes at
Caltrans made the deployment of this innovation difficult.
Demonstrations by the crew using the Balsi Beam helped get the word out
to the maintenance community. Having champions at all levels to support
the Balsi Beam is critical for the success of implementing this
innovation. Training needs to be developed by maintenance personnel as
hands-on training for crews to be able to operate the Balsi Beam.
3. Lack of a Business Case for Commercializing Balsi Beam. Balsi Beam
has strong business (and safety) case but documenting such an
innovation case for commercialization was a new process for Caltrans.
Documenting the business case for the Balsi Beam was essential for
getting additional resources to purchase additional units through the
Budget Change Proposal process at Caltrans. Documenting the business
case not only yielded a solid and presentable business case, but also
during the process itself, stronger links were established between
champions at all levels for this innovative system from regular highway
maintenance workers to the Chief for the Division of Maintenance at
Caltrans, District Director for District 3 (in Sacramento), and
Caltrans Chief Deputy Director. This made the case stronger to
implement the Balsi Beam. Establishing the business case using worker
safety data and in-field evaluations helped to overcome the
institutional issues. DRI commissioned CCIT to perform an evaluation.
Finally, DRI funded research at UC-Davis to perform benefit-cost
analysis and risk evaluation study.
A consultant was hired to help DRI establish a process to sell the
licenses to vendors to produce units for other states. Two goals of
commercializing the Balsi Beam were to improve the product design and
to reduce the costs and time to produce the units.
4. Legal Restrictions. One way for Caltrans to share this innovation
with other states would have been to ``gift'' the license to other
states or venders. However, California law prohibits Caltrans from
doing so. Article XVI 6 of California Constitution prohibits any
public agency from making ``any gift of any public money or thing of
value to any individual, municipal or other corporation whatever''
(23). As a result, DRI has developed licenses to allow other states to
purchase the right to use Balsi Beam through license agreements. DRI
will be issuing an RFP to sell Balsi Beam licenses to multiple
qualified vendors.
5. High Capital Cost. A major obstacle for getting the approval to
deploy additional Balsi Beam units has been its high capital cost. The
capital cost of the original prototype unit was $257,000. Capital cost
for a new, fully operational unit is estimated to be as high as
$600,000-700,000. Increases in the price of steel, complex system
requirements, and potential liabilities are behind the cost increases.
High capital cost has become a barrier to deploying Balsi Beam at
Caltrans and to marketing it to other State DOTs. DRI is using
commercialization to reduce capital cost by improving the design and
optimizing manufacturing procedures as well as mass-producing the units
to domestic and international customers. Concerned about its high cost,
the California Department of Finance asked Caltrans to evaluate other
less expensive mobile work zone protection devices. Caltrans will
purchase an additional three Balsi Beams units and three ArmorGuardTM
units. This study suggests that one way to reduce the high capital cost
is to optimize Balsi Beam design and its manufacturing processes.
Another way is to mass-produce the system, which spreads the fixed
manufacturing costs over larger number of units by marketing it to
other State agencies and overseas.
6. Intellectual Property Constraints. The patent and resulting
Intellectual Property license for the Balsi Beam is an important
discussion point that relates to implementing innovation. Almost all
states have competitive bidding requirements to assure that they get
the lowest price for the products they buy. CCIT conducted a study to
analyze problems related to intellectual property and licensing of the
Balsi Beam and concluded that Caltrans may have hampered the marketing
of Balsi Beam by patenting it (12). This same study concluded that if a
patent or licensed product requires exclusive, non-competitive bid,
government entities might not be able to purchase the product because
of the restrictions placed on non-competitive bids.
7. Uncertainty about a Fair Market Value for Balsi Beam. Uncertainty
in determining a fair market value for Balsi Beam has been a financial
stumbling block facing the implementation of this innovation. An
agreement with the State of New York was held up for about one year
waiting for the license to be developed and approved. In an effort to
solve this problem, DRI commissioned CCIT in 2007 to conduct a study to
estimate a market value for Balsi Beam license. CCIT concluded that a
fair market value for the license would be $2.6 million. The study
further assumed that there is demand for 136 units that could be
marketed eventually. Thus, the license cost per unit would $19,000 per
unit (12). Fair market value is critical for establishing that Caltrans
gets a reasonable compensation for the Intellectual Property and for
complying with the State Constitution that prevents gifts of public
resources.
Lessons Learned
This case study illustrates the importance of several lessons
learned including the need for all of the following:
1. Creating champions at all levels of the organization from the crew
level to top management. Getting to this stage in the deployment of
innovation has taken considerable time and dedication on part of
champions at all levels in the organization.
2. Carefully Managing Intellectual Property Rights. Intellectual
Property was a significant issue with the deployment of the Balsi Beam.
It is different than the other two case studies because Caltrans owns
the patent for the Balsi Beam. Developing standard license agreements
for use by other states and providing a market assessment were
effective in overcoming the IP roadblocks. Caltrans is very close to
issuing RFP to sell the licenses to vendors who will allow other
potential customers to purchase Balsi Beam through commercial channels.
3. Optimizing Manufacturing and Production of Balsi Beam.
Commercialization should optimize Balsi Beam design and manufacturing
process and lower production cost. Mass production is also expected to
lower unit cost.
4. Marketing. Marketing the Balsi Beam across the country has helped
to gain credibility within California by proving that this technology
is unique for the purpose of obtaining resources to purchase additional
units. In June 2004, Caltrans sent the Balsi Beam across the Nation on
a multi-state tour with the final destination being a demonstration for
the AASHTO Standing Committee on Maintenance. Caltrans also marketed
the Balsi Beam through many FHWA publications and by adding the Balsi
Beam to the AASHTO Technology Implementation Group (TIG).
QUESTION 3. How can the Federal Government ensure that State, county,
and city decision-makers make informed decisions (i.e., Local Technical
Assistance Program, LTAP)?
Need to Train Next Generation Workforce
Over the next 10 years, nearly half the current transportation
workforce will be eligible to retire--it's even more crucial than ever
that we provide technical assistance and training programs. Tomorrow's
decision-makers are likely today's young professionals. If they stop
learning when they leave college, their training may be 20 years behind
them by the time they are leading their agency. As technology and
processes change, we need to ensure today's decision-makers are using
today's tools, not what they learned in school 20 years ago.
LTAP Centers (the California center and 58 other centers across the
country) already support the Federal Government objectives by getting
training and information out to State, regional, local agencies in the
following ways:
Over the past 10 years, LTAP/TTAP centers have provided
training to over 200,000 State DOT employees, helping to increase their
knowledge and proficiency. More than half of this training is focused
on Highway and Worker Safety.
Each year more than 40,000 DOT staff use the LTAP/TTAP
technical newsletters as a source of timely transportation related
information.
LTAP Centers are assisting in the Strategic Highway Safety
Improvement Plan development process through their participation on
many statewide advisory committees including Roadway Safety, Bike/
Pedestrian, Work Zone Safety and Driver Behavior committees.
Partnerships between State DOTs, the Federal Highway
Administration, and the Local Technical Assistance Program have
developed Safety Circuit Rider programs to help reduce the number of
fatalities on rural roads.
LTAP Centers are administering their State High Risk Rural
Road Programs, including conducting the field reviews for local
agencies.
LTAP Centers are conducting the Safe Routes to School
Educational Outreach programs.
LTAP Center staff has coordinated national, regional, and
statewide transportation conferences including the Transportation Asset
Management Conference, the AASHTO Research Advisory Committee Meetings,
Winter Maintenance Symposiums, Pavement Preservation Conferences, Rail
Corridor Safety Conferences, and many others.
Partnerships with State DOTs on new local road safety
programs have helped to provide training, technical assistance and
funding for local road improvement projects.
State Transportation Librarians, working closely with LTAP
Librarians, have created customized search tools using Google that
include all State DOTs and all university transportation center
libraries and provided materials to State and local agencies that those
employees would not otherwise have access to.
LTAP Centers are vital for delivering critical training to
county engineers, highway superintendents and local road professionals
in each state. Over the past 10 years, over 1.5 million local
transportation professionals attended the LTAP/TTAP training.
LTAP Accomplishments and Training Statistics
``It would be hard to find a program in the Federal Government that
touches as many people and fosters such success as LTAP and TTAP'' says
Joe Toole, former FHWA's Associate Administrator for the Office of
Professional and Corporate Development and now Associate Administrator
for FHWA's Office of Safety.
Over the past 10 years, LTAP Centers have:
Conducted more than 60,000 training events,
Provided more than nine million hours of training,
Reached over 1.5 transportation professionals/practitioners
in those classrooms, nearly half of all training content relates to
highway and worker safety,
Distributed over two million technical publications, and
Saved local transportation agencies an estimated $8 for every
$1 LTAP spent on information and training.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) was
created as a means to conduct research in acute problem areas that
affect highway planning, design, construction, operation, and
maintenance nationwide. NCHRP is a voluntary program created by
agreement between AASHTO, FHWA, and member States and administered by
the TRB.
Caltrans values the research produced through the NCHRP program.
Caltrans contributes $3.5 million each year to NCHRP. In 2008, 54
projects were selected for funding of which 37 were a high priority for
Caltrans. Of the 171 projects selected over the past three years,
Caltrans has over 50 members serving on project panels guiding the
research. The strength of the NCHRP research projects is in how they
are developed and supported, usually by TRB or AASHTO committees, and
how the research is pursued through panels that represent the users/
customers to make sure the research is meaningful. This model is very
similar to how the SHRP 2 was developed through direct involvement from
transportation stakeholders and practitioners. A recent TRB project
Communicating the Value of Research objective to develop a guide for
successfully communicating the value of transportation research
projects and programs is a good example of the type of research that is
pursued at the request of the transportation community.
QUESTION 4. Is the current workforce capable of implementing advanced
highway technologies?
The challenge of implementing advanced highway technologies is more
an institutional issue. The employees of today are very capable of
taking on the new challenges of advance highway technologies. What they
are lacking are the tools to bring new technologies into their
environments to make changes that will improve the products and
services that are provided to the transportation system customers.
In order for the workforce to implement innovations they need to
have the ``right stuff'' to overcome the many institutional and
organizational barriers. One basic requirement that most advanced
technologies have difficulty overcoming is to establish a business case
that can be approved through the financial institutions. Providing
product specifications and training are requirements that often are not
met. The innovation system is designed to create new ideas, not to
implement them. At Caltrans, we have dedicated resources to deploying
research results by forming a four-member deployment branch. We have
also established the California Center for Innovative Transportation to
assist with deployment of research products and services.
Innovation Survey
Transportation innovation information can help provide insights
into what our current staff thinks about innovation and what we should
do to encourage them to innovate. DRI conducted a pilot survey in an
attempt to help answer the following research innovation questions. The
following survey was sent to 150 transportation research professionals
in California, research executives in the other 49 State DOTs, and some
in Canada:
1. Should focus be on sustaining (evolutionary) or disrupting
(revolutionary) innovation?
2. What are the most common roadblocks facing the implementation of
innovation in transportation?
3. What are most common enablers of the innovation process?
4. Prioritize the importance of innovation in safety, performance,
cost-effectiveness, quality, and environmental protection.
5. How can we facilitate the process of implementing innovation at
Caltrans and other State DOTs?
Survey Instrument
The survey consisted of ten questions used to test our assumptions
``hypothesis'' regarding the existence of the above barriers and
enablers. Respondents completed 109 ``usable'' surveys. The survey
asked respondents the following:
Rate the importance of each roadblock and enabler.
State if they prefer sustaining or disruptive technologies.
Prioritize which innovations, safety, performance, cost-
effectiveness, quality, and environmental protection, are most
important.
Provide their suggestions for improving the innovation
process.
Survey Results
1. About 79 percent of respondents indicated that innovation is
``very important,'' 20 percent indicated it is ``important.''
2. About 62 percent of respondents thought ``sustaining''
(evolutionary) technologies are more important than ``disruptive''
(revolutionary) technologies. However, 73 percent of academic
respondents believed the other way around.
3. Safety was the top priority for non-academic respondents with an
average score of 4.1/5.0.
4. Academic researchers indicated they are most interested in
performance innovations, followed by quality.
5. About 63 percent of respondents considered themselves innovation
champions.
6. About 42 percent of respondents are decision-makers.
7. About 40 percent of respondents are potential implementers of
technological innovations.
8. ``Resistance to Change'' was voted by both Caltrans practitioners
and academic researchers as the most serious roadblock to innovation
(researchers scored it 4.8/5.0, Caltrans participants scored it 4.6/
5.0).
9. Innovation enablers ``Product matches user needs'' received a
score of 4.6/5.0; ``User/customer participation'' received a score of
4.5/5.0; and ``Successful pilot projects'' received a score of 4.4/5.0.
10. Both Caltrans practitioners and academic researchers view ``lack
of political will to take on challenge'' as the most serious
institutional barrier to innovation, with researchers thinking it is
more serious and rating this barrier 4.7 on average as compared with
Caltrans group, who rated it 4.3 on average.
IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION INNOVATION IMPLEMENTATION
1. Establish clear direction and procedures for the innovation process
A vast number of respondent comments focused on the need to
establish clear direction and procedures for the innovation process,
including clear objectives and precise performance measures to evaluate
success.
One respondent stressed the importance to define what is ``new''
and what is ``innovative.'' Another said clear procedures should be
created for implementations and marketing, and some respondents
recommended to make pilot projects part of the implementation process.
Frustration with bureaucracy was evident. The innovation process should
be streamlined so that there are fewer barriers holding up innovation.
``The FSR [Feasibility Study Report required for implementation of
innovations at Caltrans] process and requirements are mind-boggling and
in need of streamlining as well.'' Executive leaders must
``institutionalize'' the culture of encouraging innovation by
integrating it into work plans and incorporating it into the regular
performance evaluations of the organization and its managers. One
respondent's experience is that most innovations stop at the
recommendations level in government and there are not good
implementation plans to carry out the recommendations make them
permanent or institutional. The same respondent further cautioned that
``Too often things are attached to a person and when that person moves
on and so does the innovation.'' The implementation of innovation
should be mandated in order to carry innovation to fruition.
2. Improve communications
One respondent emphasized ``Communicate, communicate, and
communicate.'' Make sure that everyone with an interest in the
potential innovation gets a chance to provide input and to question. A
university research executive suggested connecting the organization
[say Caltrans] more closely with researchers and innovators. A project
manager would mandate customer participation in project progress and
meetings.
3. Secure executive sponsorship and management support
There was a universal consensus that strong management support for
innovation is indispensable. ``There is no substitute for leadership
with vision and practical, focused follow-through,'' one respondent
wrote. Innovation begins with executive-level commitment and
development of a work environment that embraces innovation. Upper
management support and encouragement is required. Innovation needs
strong executive support & successful pilots/demos. There is a need for
strong executive mandate and adequate funding of demonstration
programs. While executive-level support is important, they need to
leave the implementation to the experts. Leaders should lead, not
manage. Finally, top leadership has to make innovation a priority and
then hold people accountable.
4. Empower people and find champions for each innovative idea/project
Innovation champions are needed in the innovation policy and
procedures area. Otherwise, innovations will fall flat or will not
reach full potential. Many respondents suggested that research staff
``needs to be empowered to accomplish innovation.'' It is necessary to
have champions at high-levels in order to create a culture for
innovation in an organization as well as product-level champions to
overcome resistance to change. A university professor and a director of
a university transportation center said: ``Give people some freedom to
try new things''. A Caltrans project manager suggested giving ownership
of each innovation project to a small team with management backing. One
respondent pointed out the role of the individual in innovation and
cautioned that, ``if the person who is championing the change is not
liked in the organization, the change may be overlooked.''
5. Create incentives for innovators
Many respondents argued for increasing opportunities for innovative
ideas. Both university researchers and project managers advocated
creating incentives. ``More ideas portend higher probability of
innovation which may be implemented,'' said a university researcher. A
senior electronics engineer would reward innovators and reward those in
management who are willing to take reasonable risk when the potential
advance is significant. A senior transportation engineer would
encourage more innovative research work by staff by reducing
administrative workload demands.
6. Demonstrate the benefits of innovation
Many respondents emphasized the importance of ensuring that end-
users have clear understanding of the advantage of innovation. The
benefits of the concept must be proven to satisfy the real user needs.
Innovation advocates and end-users must have clear understanding of the
problem and value added by innovation. The importance of an innovation
must be clarified up front to all stakeholders. Case studies should be
used to show how other State agencies have implemented an innovation
and show how it has improved their business.
7. Manage risk and change
Surprisingly, many respondents with executive authority confronted
the need to take reasonable risk head on. One asked to ``demystify
risk'' because sometimes ``it is riskier not to act.'' Another said one
must ``accept certain amount of risk to compensate for high payoff.''
One acknowledged that the core issue is the ``risk-averse culture,''
the general lack of positive reinforcement to try something new, and
the ``penalties'' if you break the mold and fail. One executive
cautioned, however, to be realistic and not expect the organization to
always absorb the cost/effort to innovate. One respondent believed that
people, users, and even institutions that normally are reluctant to
change would eventually welcome ``good'' changes that make life easier.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Respondents recommended seven major actions to develop a workforce
that can implement innovations that will make new or advanced
technologies a commonplace reality:
1. Establish clear direction and procedures for the innovation
process,
2. Improve communications,
3. Secure executive sponsorship and management support,
4. Empower employees and find champions for each innovation,
5. Create incentives for innovators,
6. Demonstrate the benefits of innovation, and
7. Manage risk and change.
Finally, the research showed that ``resistance to change'' and
``lack of political will'' are among the most serious barriers to
innovation. The highest-rated enabler of innovation was ``product
matched user need.'' It was also evident that innovation, whether
disruptive or sustaining, requires champions of innovation at all
levels of the organization to be successful. It was evident that
managing risk and change is critical for the success of innovation. In
the public sector, most failures are highly publicized and criticized.
A single innovation failure can outstand, outtalk, and overshadow
dozens of successful ones. Therefore, creating the ability to take
calculated reasonable risks is required at all public agencies in the
transportation sector.
REFERENCES
1. Transportation Research Board (TRB) Special Report 261, The
Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology, Research and
Technology Coordinating Committee, p. 36. Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.
2. Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary. http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary
3. Ettlie, John E. Managing Innovation, New Technology, New Products,
and New Services in a Global Economy. Burlington, MA. Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann Publications, 2006.
4. Luecke, Richard and Ralph Katz. Managing Creativity and
Innovation. Boston, MA. Harvard Quarterly (35), 2003.
5. AlKadri, Mohamed, Benouar, Hamed, and Tsao, H.-S. Jacob.
``Intermediate Automation Concepts for Incremental Deployment of
Automated Highway Systems,'' Transportation Research Record 1651,
Washington, D.C., 1998.
6. Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
and Burroughs Wellcome Fund Making the Right Moves, A Practical Guide
to Scientific Management for Postdocs and New Faculty. Research
Triangle Park, NC, 2004.
7. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Managing
Technology Transfer, A Strategy for the Federal Highway Administration,
Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (Special Report 256).
Washington, D.C., 1999.
8. Sidhu, Ikhlaq and Margulici, J.D. Policy Brief: Procuring
Innovation at Transportation Public Agencies. Berkeley: University of
California, Berkeley, 2008.
9. Margulici, J.D, Jacobowitz, D., and Lingham, V., CCIT. Sensys
Networks, Inc., Innovative Case Study. University of California,
Berkeley, 2007.
10. Christensen, Clayton M. (2000). The Innovators Dilemma: The
Revolutionary Book That Will Change The Way You Do Business. New York,
NY First Harper Business ed., 2000.
11. AlKadri Proposal Review of Sensys proposal. Unpublished Caltrans
data, March, 2002.
12. Margulici, J.D., and Jacobowitz, D. (May 2007). Intellectual
Property Valuation and Licensing of the Balsi Beam, Draft Report. CCIT,
University of California-Berkeley. Business School Press. Marguluci,
October, 2007.
13. Margulici, J.D, Jacobowitz, D., and Lingham, V. Sensys Networks,
Inc., Innovative Case Study. CCIT, 2007.
14. Palen, J. Sensys and Loop Detector Evaluation Follow Up Report.
Caltrans Division of Research and Innovation. Sacramento, CA, 2007.
15. Interview with Professor Pravin Variaya of the College of
Engineering, UC-Berkeley and Amin Haoui, SensysTM President
(unpublished data), April, 2008.
16. Pavement Research Center. Official website http://
www.its.berkeley.edu/pavementresearch/
17. Lee, E.B, and Thomas, D. Accelerated Reconstruction of I-15 Devore
Corridor. Public Roads Vol. 70, No. 4, January/February 2007.
18. Caltrans, DRI, 2004 California Department of Transportation,
Division of Research and Innovation. Rapid Pavement Rehabilitation with
Long Life Asphalt Concrete Project experience from the rehabilitation
of Interstate 710 in Long Beach, California using 55-hour weekend
closures. May 3, 2008 November 2004, (also see) http://www.dot.ca.gov/
research/roadway/llprs/i-710-brochure.pdf
19. Jones, Jerry; Sri Balasubramanian, Sri; and Teague, Kris. Research
and Technology Transporter, (http://www.tfhrc.gov/trnsptr/aug04), USDOT
FHWA, 2004.
20. Ravani, B., and Ortolano, M. Evaluation of the Balsi Beam Mobile
Work Zone Crash Protection System, Draft Final Report. Advanced Highway
Construction and Maintenance Technologies Center, University
California-Davis, 2006.
21. Department of Transportation, Division of Research and Innovation.
Caltrans Mobile Work Zone Protection System: The Balsi Beam. January
2007 (Retrieved May 3, 2008 from: http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/
researchreports/two-page-summaries/
balsi-beam-2-pager.pdf).
22. Case Study Interview, Angela Wheeler, unpublished data, May 2008.
23. California State Constitution, Article XVI 6.
Statement of The American Society of Civil Engineers
An Overview of Transportation Research and
Development: Priorities for Reauthorization
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) \1\ is pleased to
submit this Statement for the Record of the February 12 hearing held by
the United States House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Technology
and Innovation, Committee on Science and Technology: An Overview of
Transportation Research and Development: Priorities for
Reauthorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national
civil engineering organization. It represents more than 146,000 civil
engineers individually in private practice, government, industry, and
academia who are dedicated to the advancement of the science and
profession of civil engineering. ASCE is a non-profit educational and
professional society organized under Part 1.501(c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's surface transportation system is broken. ASCE's 2009
Report Card for America's Infrastructure, released in January, graded
the Nation's Roads a D-; Bridges a C; Transit a D; and Rail a grade of
C-.
Among the key findings are the following. In 2007, 41,059 people
were killed in motor vehicle crashes and 2,491,000 were injured. Motor
vehicle crashes cost the U.S. $230 billion per year--$819 for each
resident in medical costs, lost productivity and travel delays.
Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic at a cost of
$78.2 billion a year--$710 per motorist. Roadway conditions are a
significant factor in about one-third of traffic fatalities and poor
road conditions cost U.S. motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and
operating costs--$333 per motorist. One-third of America's major roads
are in poor or mediocre condition and 36 percent of the Nation's major
urban highways are congested.
More than 26 percent of the Nation's bridges are either
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete and the number of
deficient bridges in urban areas is on the rise. While demand for
public transit is increasing, only about half of American households
have access to bus or rail transit and only 25 percent consider it to
be a good option. Because freight and passenger rail generally share
the same network, any significant increase in passenger rail demand
will exacerbate freight railroad capacity challenges.
To compete in the global economy, improve our quality of life, and
raise our standard of living, we must rebuild and update America's
surface transportation infrastructure. America's 21st century surface
transportation system must be founded on a new paradigm based on a
comprehensive, holistic, multi-modal approach utilizing integrated,
effective, inter-modal, sustainable, cost effective solutions. Only
then will America have a surface transportation system that is
unparalleled in its safety, security, efficiency and effectiveness.
As Congress works to develop the 2009 Authorization of the Surface
Transportation Program, it must remain cognizant that it can no longer
focus only on the movement of cars and trucks from one place to
another. Rather, the new paradigm must be based on moving people, goods
and services across the country. This new vision must be inter-modal
and deal with the possible effects of climate change; land use,
sustainability, and the anticipated changes in the population's
demographics, particularly age and urbanization.
ASCE supports the vision of a national inter-modal transportation
system which is economically efficient, environmentally sound, provides
the foundation for U.S. businesses to compete globally and moves people
and freight in an efficient manner. Developing and deploying new
technologies and cutting-edge solutions will require input from
stakeholders in the public, private, and academic sectors, and
accomplishing a truly inter-modal system will require partnerships
among Federal, State, local and regional government authorities as well
as citizen groups and the private sector.
Research and technology (R&T) are critical to achieving
transportation goals in: infrastructure performance and preservation;
safety; quality of life; economic prosperity; environmental impacts;
and sustainability and security . . . and technology transfer
activities are critical to the successful implementation of research
results. While we understand that in the current economic environment
it may be difficult to increase surface transportation research and
development funding, at a minimum, current R&T funding levels must be
maintained and public-private partnerships, where appropriate, should
be fostered.
The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) has been an essential source of
funding for surface transportation research and technology for decades,
and research results have led to many benefits including: materials
that improved the performance of pavements and structures; design
methods that reduce scour (and the consequent threat of collapse) of
bridges; intelligent transportation systems technologies that improve
safety and reduce travel delay; methods and materials that radically
improve our ability to keep roads safely open in severe winter weather;
innovative management approaches that reduce environmental impacts and
improve the cultural aspects of transportation facilities; and many
more.
One way to reduce the investment gap, that is, the difference
between HTF revenues and the funding needed to improve the surface
transportation system, is through research, as research outcomes can
improve the performance and durability of our transportation
infrastructure, resulting in reduced operations and maintenance costs
and less frequent replacement of infrastructure elements. The
Exploratory Research Program, funded in SAFETEA-LU, has the potential
to be the lead program in providing improved materials, designs, and
processes that can transform the performance of our surface
transportation infrastructure.
The ability of the HTF to continue to serve as a major funding
source for transportation R&T is dependent upon the continued
capability of the Highway Trust Fund revenue sources to generate
adequate levels of funding. The latest projections indicate that
Highway Trust Fund revenues will be insufficient to continue the 2009
SAFETEA-LU authorized levels of funding in 2010. The result will be not
only reduced investment in highway and transit infrastructure, but also
reduced investment in research. To avoid reduced investment, Congress
will need to address this problem by September 30, 2009. While in the
short-term, an increase in user fees is clearly necessary, our national
surface transportation policy must--in the longer-term--move toward a
system that more directly aligns fees that a user is charged with the
benefits that the user derives. Appropriate policy research can help
identify solutions to the funding issue and what methods and
technologies are best to provide revenue to the HTF. This type of
research needs to be funded in the new authorization.
Other research programs that can continue to contribute to the
improvement of the highway system include the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) program, the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) and State department of transportation
programs funded largely through State Planning and Research (SPR)
funds. In the transit area, the main programs are those of the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) and the Transit Cooperative Research
Program (TCRP). ASCE believes that the University Transportation
Centers (UTC) program provides valuable research across most
transportation modes.
Designated programs and earmarks in SAFETEA-LU resulted in an over
designation of funding in the research title. As a result, the FHWA has
no discretionary research funding, causing some research products and
services previously provided by FHWA to either be absorbed by State
programs or to be discontinued altogether. Some of the earmarks also
placed additional burdens on State research programs when these
programs were identified as sources of matching funds for the earmarks.
Therefore, as we go forward, we recommend that there be minimal
earmarking and that free and open competition among non-federal
entities performing research utilizing federal funds be promoted.
Within the context of the general principles set out above, ASCE
supports the following actions regarding specific R&T programs:
The research and technology portion of the State
Planning and Research (SPR) program should be maintained to
help support state-specific activities while continuing to
encourage the states to pool these resources to address matters
of more general concern.
University research should continue to be supported
through the University Transportation Centers (UTC) program
using a competitive selection process that guarantees quality
participants and fairness in the allocation of funds.
The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) program
should be strengthened by giving it sufficient funding and
flexibility to implement the recommendations of TRB Special
Report 261, The Federal Role in Highway Research and
Technology, to focus on fundamental, long-term research; to
perform research on emerging national issues and on areas not
addressed by others; to engage stakeholders more consistently
in their program; and to employ open competition, merit review,
and systematic evaluation of outcomes.
A continuation of the Strategic Highway Research
Program SHRP II beyond the life of SAFETEA-LU, ensuring that
critical research will be continued in key areas of surface
transportation.
The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) research
program should be given sufficient funding and flexibility to
work with its stakeholders to develop and pursue national
transit research priorities.
The new Research and Innovative Technology
Administration (RITA) should have a well-defined scope and
responsibility and appropriate funding, in addition to
currently authorized research funding, so that it may
supplement and support the R&T programs of the modal
administrations.
We also encourage the Subcommittee to review the findings and
recommendations of TRB Special Report 295, ``The Federal Investment in
Highway Research 2006-2009, Strengths and Weaknesses.''
While the Federal Government plays a relatively minor role in the
ownership and operations of the Nation's highways, it plays a critical
and indispensable role in the research and innovation process,
providing about two-thirds of the total amount spent on highway
research and technology projects. It also plays a major role in
training and technology transfer, and has traditionally been the sole
source for higher-risk, potentially higher pay-off research.
To bolster the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT)
capabilities to improve research, development, technology coordination
and evaluation, in 2004, Congress created DOT's Research and Innovative
Technology Administration (RITA), to coordinate and review the
Department's programs for purposes of reducing research duplication,
enhancing opportunities for joint efforts and ensuring that research,
development and technology activities are meeting their objectives. In
2006, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that
while RITA had made progress toward these ends, more needed to be done.
Specifically, GAO noted that RITA has not yet developed an overall
strategy, evaluation plan, or performance measures which delineate how
its activities ensure the effectiveness of the Department's research,
development, technology investment. As a cost-effective coordinated
research, development and technology program is vital to creating a
world class, 21st century surface transportation program, we urge
Congress to continue to monitor RITA's progress towards achieving these
goals to ensure that the public receives a maximum return on every
dollar invested.
Rebuilding America's transportation infrastructure is a critical
part of rebuilding our economy. And there can be little doubt that a
highly focused and well coordinated R&T surface transportation
investment program is necessary if we are to build a surface
transportation system that is unparalleled in its safety, security,
efficiency and effectiveness, one which provides long-term benefits and
reinforces the economic foundation of our nation.
ASCE looks forward to working with the Committee to create a strong
transportation research program in the next surface transportation
authorization bill.