Highway Research: Current Programs and Future Directions -- Special Report 244 (1994)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Special Report 244 HIGHWAY t!* VA : R[SIAR(H current Programs and Future Directions TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD National Research Council

1994 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOAJU) EXECUTIVE COMMIITEE Chairman: Joseph M. Sussman, JR East Professor and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Vice Chairman: Lillian C. Liburdi, Director, Port Department, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York City Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board Brian J. L. Berry, Lloyd Viel Berkner Regcntal Professor and Chair, Bruton Center for Development Studies, University of Texas at Dallas Dwight M. Bower, Director, Idaho Transportation Department, Boise John E. Breen, The Nasser I. Al-Rashid Chair in Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin Kirk Brown, Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield David Burwdll, President, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Washington, D.C. L. G. (Gary) Byrd, Consultant, Alexandria, Virginia A. Ray Chamberlain, Vice President of Freight Policy, American Trucking Associations, Alexandria, Virginia (Past Chairman, 1993) Ray W. Clough (Nishkian Professor of Structural Engineering Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley), Structures Consultant, Sunriver, Oregon Richard K. Davidson, Chairman and CEO, Union Pacific Railroad, Omaha, Nebraska James C. DeLong, Director of Aviation, Denver International Airport, Colorado Delon Hampton, Chairman and CEO, Delon Hampton & Associates, Chartered, Washington, D.C. Don C. Kelly, Secretary and Commissioner of Highways, Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort, Kentucky Robert I(ochanowski, Executive Director, Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission, Pittsburgh James L. Lammie, President and CEO, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., New York City William W Millar, Executive Director, Port Authority ofAllegh&ny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Past Chairman, 1992) Charles P. O'Leary, Jr., Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Trarisportation, Concord Brig. Gen. Jude W. P. Patin (retired), Secretary, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge Neil Peterson, former Executive Director, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Rcdondo Beach, California Darrel Rensink, Director, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames James W. van Loben Sels, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrcll Centennial Chair in Engineering and Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin (Past Chairman, 1991) David N. Worniley, Dean of Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Howard Ycrusalim, Secretary of Transportation, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg Robert A. Young III, President, ABE Freight Systems, Inc., Fort Smith, Arkansas Mike Acott, President, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, Maryland (cx officio) Roy A. Allen, Vice President, Research and Test Department, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. (cx officio) Andrew H. Card, Jr., President and CEO, American Automobile Manuflicturers Association, Washington, D.C. (cx officio) Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO, American Trucking Associations, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia (cx officio) Francis B. Francois, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. (cx officio) Jack R. Gilssrap, Executive Vice President, American Public Transit Association, Washington, D.C. (cx officio) Vice Adin. Albert J. Herberger, Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (cx officio) David R. Hinson, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (cx officio) Gordon J. Linton, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (cx officio) Ricardo Martinez, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (cx officio) Jolene M. Molitoris, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (cx officio) Dave Sharma, Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (cx officio) Rodney E. Slater, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (cx officio) Lt. Gen. Arthur E. Williams, Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. (cx officio)

Special Report 244 HIGHWAY RESEARCH Current Programs and Future Directions Research and Technology Coordinating Committee TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD National Research Council National Academy Press Washington, D.C. 1994

Transportation Research Board Special Report 244 Subscriber Category IA planning and administration Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual pub- lications directly from the TRB Business Office or by annual subscription through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further mformation or to obtain a catalog of TRB publications in print, write to Transportation Research Board, Business Office, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418 (telephone 202-334-3214). Copyright 1994 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsi- ble for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The Transportation Research Board does not endorse products or manufacturers; trade and manufacturers' names may appear in this report because they are consid- ered essential to its object. This study was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Highway research : current programs and future directions. p. cm. - (Special report / Transportation Research Board, National Research Council ; 244) ISBN 0-309-06054-0 1. Highway research—United States. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board. II. Series : Special report (National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board); 244. TE192.H54 1994 625.7'072073—dc2O 94-42203 CIP Cover design: Karen L. White Cover photographs courtesy of Parsons Brinckerhoff, Texas Transportation Institute, and Maryland State Police.

Research and Technology Coordinating Committee H. Nop.ij' ABRAMSON, Chairman, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas (retired) A. RAY CHAMBERLAIN, Vice Chairmrn, American Trucking Associations, Alexandria, Virginia LAURENCE J. ADAMS, Martin Marietta Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland (retired) KATHLEEN BRAATEN, Richland County Commissioner, North Dakota (retired) DAvrn G. BURWELL, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Washington, D.C. RAYMOND F. DECKER, University Science Partners, Ann Arbor, Michigan JAMES N. DENN, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul JOHN W. FISHER, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania DELON HAMPTON, Delon Hampton & Associates, Washington, D.C. THOMAS F. HUMPHREY, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge LESTER P. LAIvIlvI, Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility, Washington, D.C. CHARLES A. MACHEMEHL JR., Vulcan Materials Company, Birmingham, Alabama RAY D. PETHTEL, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg S. EDWIN ROwE, S. E. Rowe and Associates, Hacienda Heights, California PATRICIAF. WALLER, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor RICHARD P. WEAVER, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento FRANKLIN E. WHITE, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, California CLYDE E. WOODLE, Trucking Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia CHARLEY V. W00TAN, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station Liaison Representatives ROBERT BETSOLD, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Jow'. CLEMENTS, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation DENNIS JUDYCKI, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

FRANCIS FRANCOIS, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C. Transportation Research Board Staff STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director, Studies and Information Services WALTER J. DIEWALD, Senior Program Officer NANCY A. ACKERMAN, Director, Reports and Editorial Services SusAN E. G. BROWN, Editor

Preface The Research and Teclmology Coordinating Committee (RTCC) was estab- lished as the result of discussions during 1990 and early 1991 among the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Transportation Research Board. Largely in response to the Intermodal Suthce Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, which provided a substantial jump in fimding for research and technology (R&T) activities, the RTCC was asked to provide a continuing, independent assessment of the Federal Highway Administration R&T program and to develop broad-based priority recommendations for the years ahead. Since its initial meeting in November 1991, the RTCC has pursued those purposes vigorously, continually setting its deliberations against a questioning background of what should be the vision for a sustainable transportation sys- tem one or two generations into the future. Even at the earliest stages of its activ- ity, the committee was able to make constructive recommendations and to present alternative viewpoints that are believed to have favorably affected the Federal Highway Administration R&T program, and these efforts continue. Throughout, the committee has received voluminous material and con- ducted extended briefings about specific details of Federal Highway Administration and other highway R&T efforts, which have been invalu- able. We continue to try to learn more about highway research and related work at each meeting. Nevertheless, we have recognized that there are many gaps in our knowledge and that we lack a single source of informa- tion about highway R&T that could at times be helpful in providing or helping to locate necessary background for a particular issue. As a conse- v

vi Preface quence, we have prepared this report for our own edification but have also sought to document information in such a way that it might be useful as well to top-level decision makers and administrators in both the public and private sectors. We have attempted to include enough information about major programs so that we and others can build on that knowledge base, but to do so without becoming overwhelmed by the details of individual projects. As we continue our work, we will be giving closer scrutiny to the research products to assess how well the program is achieving its goals. To help describe the state of highway R&T we have developed a "snap- shot" that focuses on expenditures in 1993. We are fully aware of the lim- itations of such an approach and recognize that significant changes have already taken place that should be considered in any discussion of current and future programs. Consequently, we have tried to present this picture with enough details to account for the steps that have been and are being taken to enhance weak areas and aggressively pursue strong areas. There is ample evidence that the highway R&T programs described in this report are very dynamic and that change is fundamental to their nature. Every member of the RTCC views research, technology, and innova- tion as essential for thriving in today's world and for meeting such chal- lenges as addressing the congestion and air quality problems of our urbanized areas, using computer communication technologies and new materials to make highway transportation safer and more efficient, and reexamining the role that highways play in the multimodal transportation system of the 21st century. We believe that well-planned research activities will help the United States find its way through the range of complex options that may be available to achieve long-term transportation goals. We wish to thank the research agencies and the many individuals within them who cooperated with us in preparing this report. They willingly sub- jected themselves to a scrutiny that, at times, could have caused apprehen- sion, but their collective decision to contribute enthusiastically to our efforts surely reflects a drive to work toward the improvement of their respective programs. They embrace the view that research is a commitment not only to improvement but also to change and, most important, to opportunity. The study was performed under the overall supervision of Robert E. Skinner Jr., formerly Director of Special Projects and currently Executive Director. The project director was Walter Diewald. Special appreciation is expressed to Susan E.G. Brown, who edited the final report under the supervision of Nancy A. Ackerman, Director, TRB Reports and Editorial Services, and to Marguerite Schneider, who prepared the final report for publication. H. Norman Abramson, Chairman Research and Technology Coordinating Committee

Contents Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 18 Objective of Report 21 Context of Report 22 Organization of Report 23 2 The Highway Industry 25 Profile of Highway Industry 25 Highway Spending 31 Problems and Challenges Facing Highway Industry 33 Implications for R&T Activities 35 3 Highway Research and Technology Programs 37 Major Highway R&T Programs and Related Activities 37 Review of Selected Highway R&T Programs 58 Spending by Major Highway R&T Programs 62 4 Classifying Highway Research 66 Alternative Approaches to Categorizing Research 66 Alternative Framework for Grouping Research Activities 71 5 Mapping the Highway Research Program Using the New Framework 78 Methodological Issues 78 FHWA R&T Activities 80 NCHRP R&T Activities 80 State Highway Agency R&T Activities 81 Conclusions Drawn from Mapping 83

6 New Directions for Highway Research and Tethnology Programs 88 Strengths of Highway R&T 88 Committee's Vision for Highway R&T 90 Emphasis Areas for Future Highway R&T Program 95 Concluding Comments 101 Study Committee Biographical Information 104

Executive Summary Americans depend on highways, and highway agencies depend, in turn, on research and technology (R&T) to provide the means to make highways last longer, operate more efficiently and safely, and do less dam- age to the environment. The overall scale of R&T activity' in the highway industry, compared with total annual highway expenditures, is still well below that of most other industries, but highway R&T has witnessed a modest renaissance over thepast decade, as evidenced by new and expanded programs, increased funding, and a higher profile within the field. This renaissance is still under way, and many individual R&T activities are in a transitional stage. As a result, any description of the highway R&T activities risks being out of date soon. Nevertheless, the need continues for an overview of the R&T program to assist policy makers, agency officials, and others who need to understand the program and exercise broad pro- gram oversight. And this need is especially great during a period of tran- sition when the opportunity exists to redirect efforts toward important issues or opportunities that might otherwise be neglected. The Research and Technology Coordinating Committee, a special com- mittee convened by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Research Council and funded by the Federal Highway Admin- istration (FHWA), prepared this overview report to fill that gap. The report R&T activities include basic research, applied research, development, demonstration, tech- nology transfer, and education.

2HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS describes the natic)n's highway industry and the major highway R&T pro- grams. It then introduces a new framework for classifying highway R&T activities, maps the 1993 expenditures of the major public-sector programs on this framework, and presents suggestions and recommendations for the highway R&T program that reflect the committee's vision of the needs of the highway transportation system for the next century. THE HIGHWAY INDUSTRY—IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY As used in this report, "highway industry" includes the federal, state, and local government agencies that construct, maintain, and administer America's public highways as well as the private companies that supply materials, equipment, and services used by these agencies. The unique character of this industry creates an unusual set of barriers and opportu- nities for iimovation that have shaped highway R&T programs. The highway industry is large. It has built and now maintains a sys- tem of almost 3.9 million miles whose component pieces range from two- lane unpaved roads to multilane controlled-access highways as well as bridges and other structures. The economic impact of the industry is great. By almost any measure, the highway system has an enormous impact on the economic well-being of the United States and the lifestyle of its residents. For example, total highway-related expenditures, which include private expenditures for own- ing and operating motor vehicles and highway freight expenditures as well as public expenditures for the highway system, account for roughly 12 per- cent of the gross domestic product; 88 percent of all person miles of travel are by automobile; and 27 percent of all intercity ton miles of freight is car- ried by truck. Administration of the highway system is decentralized. About 39,000 public agencies—including states, counties, cities, and other units of local government—administer portions of the highway system. The federal gov- ernment plays a significant role in financing highway construction, but it administers just 5 percent of the highway system, consisting primarily of roads on public lands such as parks or national forests. Dispersed private companies provide essential products and services. Tens of thousands of private-sector companies provide products and services to highway agencies. This fragmentation reflects the relatively low level of ver- tical and horizontal integration within the construction industry generally,

Executive Summary 3 as well as preferences for using local suppliers and contractors on publicly funded projects. For example, in 1991 only about 12 percent of highway construction contractors performed work outside their home states. The highway industry provides few incentives for innovation. Compared with industries that produce automobiles, refrigerators, or stereos for the consumer market, neither the public nor the private side of the highway industry has strong incentives for innovation. Highway agencies operate as virtual monopolies and face no regular market pressures to improve ser- vice and reduce cost. The cost pressures that they face in times of budgetary crisis favor immediate cost reductions over strategies that will lower the long-term, life-cycle costs of highways. Private highway contractors and sup- pliers have little incentive to innovate because their products and services are procured through a low-bid competitive process that is based on pre- scriptive specifications that sometimes have little to do with real perfor- mance or life-cycle cost and frequently preclude new products and methods. The highway industry has a "low-tech" image. The fact that highway construction employs common materials, some of which have been used for centuries, fosters the impression that the performance of these materi- als is well understood and that there is little room for further innovation. In truth, the composition of many basic construction materials is com- plex and critical gaps in knowledge about them hamper the ability to con- struct highways that are more durable and more cost-effective.2 At the same time, highways have proven to be a fertile ground for high-technology applications. Electronics and computer technology have been used for traffic control for more than two decades, and a wide variety of more sophisticated applications are now under development. Highway spending is substantial. Total federal, state, and local dis- bursements for highways were more than $85 billion in 1992, more than that spent by the airline industry ($67 billion) or the railroad industry ($29 billion) and roughly on par with aircraft manufacturing ($102 billion). Almost all this funding-99 percent—is by state and local agencies that administer the system. Nearly half is for construction, reconstruction, and other capital outlays; a quarter is used for maintenance and traffic services; and the rest is used for purposes such as law enforcement, debt interest, administration, and research. 2 Naturally occurring materials such as soil, rock aggrcgatcs, and asphalt are used in large quantitics in highway construction. These materials are highly variable in their composition, which affects their engineering properties. Much highway materials research is directed at determining the causes and effects of the properties of such materials and methods to con- trol the causes or ameliorate the effects.

4 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS The highway industry is now redefining its mission. For 35 years, con- struction of the Interstate system was the centerpiece of the U.S. high- way program, but now that the system is virtually complete, the highway industry no longer has such a clear, unambiguous goal. The industry must also deal with growing traffic demands and congestion, but the strategies of the past that emphasized new highway construction may no longer be appropriate in many circumstances—in part because land for highway expansion is not always available, but also because highway mobility needs must be balanced with important environmental and energy goals. At the same time the industry must operate and maintain the system in a safe manner while portions of it are being rehabilitated and renovated. The nature of the highway industry and the challenges that it faces have a number of implications for highway R&T activities. Several stand out: first, the fragmented, decentralized nature of the industry makes communication among the various entities difficult and means that researchers must make extraordinary efforts to understand the needs and priorities of the customers of research results. Second, decentralization and the lack of incentives for innovation mean that technology transfer, broadly defined, must be a sig- nificant component of the overall R&T program. Third, substantial and reg- ular expenditures on construction, maiiitenance, and basic materials; the repetitive nature of much of the work; and the historically low investments in research mean that even modest performance improvements in these tra- ditional areas can have big long-term payoffs, making it cost-effective to increase research support in these areas. Finally, growing congestion and environmental concerns create a need for strategic research about the future role of highway transportation and management of the system. HIGHWAY R&T PROGRAMS Reflecting the organization of the industry, highway R&T programs in the United States are decentralized. Several federal agencies, state highway agen- cies, private companies, universities, and various public and private consortia sponsor or conduct highway R&T programs. The major continuing programs are summarized in the following and profiled in Table ES-1.1 More detailed descriptions of these and other programs are provided in Chapter 3. The Committee focused on R&T programs with continuing funding and, in particular, examined research expenditures for fiscal year 1993. As a result, the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), a 5-year, $150 million program of research that was completed during 1987-1991, is not included in Table ES-i. SHRP is described in Chapter 3.

TABLE ES-i Sun'unary Information on Major Highway R&T Programs FHWA SP&R" NCHRPb Private' Agenda setting FHWA develops a 5-year plan each Projects nominated by agency staff; AASHTO Standing Committee Varies on basis of existing year for Congressional budget some states ask local areas fur project on Research selects projects demand for problem-solving or hearings; process is internal and ideas; FHWA approves annual work using proposals from states, product development. bottom-up. plan; states have considerable flexibility AASHTO committees, and to add or subtract projects during FHWA. the year. Typical scope Focus is on topics of widespread Focus is on topics of national interest, Focus is on state or local problems; Aimed at achieving a competitive (national) interest, based on individual state perspective, often involves technical assistance advantage or on project-related and short-term problem solving, problem solving. Funding mechanism Congress authorizes FHWA Federal funds apportioned on the Funded by a pool of SP&R Companies use own funds; funds; most federal R&D is basis of federal-aid construction funds funds; project selection is made associations use members' contracted by FHWA. combined with state match; some by AASHTO committee, pooled funds. states also fund additional R&D. Researchers Contractors include engineering Contractors include engineering Contractors include engineering Companies use in-house R&D consultants, research institutes, consultants, research institutes, and consultants, research institutes, staff; sometimes contract with and universities; FHWA staff universities; some states have in-house and universities, research organizations. conducts some research, staff that perform some research. Products Generally include reports, draft specifications, problem-solving approaches, prototype technologies, computer Private-sector R&D products models, operable equipment and devices. fbcus on company or market need and are generally proprietasy. Product users Generally include state and local transportation agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, contractors Products generally stay and consultants, transportation service providers, and universities and training programs for developing in-house for company use. training manuals and textbooks. Utilization strategy FHWA has a technology transfrr—based approach to encouraging utilization; it NCHRP projects often develop manuals, guide specifications, and uses videotapes, slide presentations, user manuals, specification guides, handbooks, handbooks; program has research report series; project selection and brochures, pilot training courses, field evaluation reports, and development pro- project panel review processes further enhance utilization potential. grams to assist the states in adopting the products; states operate similarly. Expected time to Projects, from program plan to Projects can range from 18 Similar to FHWA projects; Projects can require less time implementation" field implementation, often months to 3 years. process can be accelerated for implementation if there is require up to 3 years; high-priority an immediate need. projects can be accelerated. " SP&R = Research conducted with State Planning and Research funds. 'Private = Typical private-sector research activities. NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program. a Based on a research project 1 year in duration.

HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGFMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Federal Highway Administration FHWA is the single largest sponsor of highway research. FHWA appro- priations in 1993 included $168.5 million for research and $32.5 million for technology transfer activities. Most of the agency's research is coordi- nated and managed by its Office of Research and Development; the Office of Safety and System Applications also sponsors some research and takes the lead in technology transfer. Several other FHWA offices sponsor research related to their own areas of responsibility, often in support of pol- icy development, rule-making proceedings, and programmatic activities. The scope of the FHWA R&T program is broad, encompassing all aspects of planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of highway systems, with activities in each stage of the innovation process: basic research, applied research, development, demonstration, technology transfer, and education. Although FHWA performs some research in- house, most is contracted to universities, consultants, and other research organizations. Historically, the program has emphasized incremental, fairly short term improvements to highway methods and materials. In recent years, the focus has shifted somewhat as the agency has taken a lead role in the search for improving highway capacity and safety through the appli- cation of research in computer and information technology (intelligent vehicle-highway systems, or IVHS) and continues the large-scale, 20-year pavement test initiated under the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) [Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) test]. Other R&T activities include demonstration projects, short courses and other train- ing activities, and start-up support for a new center to test and evaluate innovative highway products developed by the private sector (operated by the Civil Engineering Research Foundation). State Planning and Research Program As a result of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), states are now required to spend 2 percent of their total federal- aid highway apportionments for planning and research, and at least one- quarter of these funds must be used specifically for research, development, and technology transfer activities. In 1993 states spent approximately $79 million of the State Planning and Research (SP&R) funds, includnig state matching funds (usually 20 percent), on R&T activities under this pro- gram. In 1991 this amount was close to $25 million; in 1992 it was about $69 million—an increase prompted by the ISTEA requirement.

Executive Summary -- 7 Each state initiates and selects its own SP&R activities, but FHVVA approves and monitors projects, primarily to avoid duplication. Program activities include contract research, in-house research, technology transfer, technical assistance to regional and local transportation agencies, materi- als and equipment testing, and staff technical development and training. SP&R research studies tend to be short in duration (1 to 2 years) and stress the development of practical solutions for quick application to current problems. Some states supplement SP&R programs with research that is funded entirely by the state, and a few states, such as California, Kentucky, Texas, and Virginia, have assembled sizable research staffs and testing facil- ities in-house or at state universities, sometimes at both. National Cooperative Highway Research Program States can pool SP&R funds to address problems of common interest. The most significant pooled-fund research program is the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) administered by TRB. NCHRP was created soon after construction of the Interstate system began, when many states experienced similar problems related to Interstate design and construction. In 1993 about $15 million was available to NCHRP, a sharp increase over funding in previous years. Typically, NCHRP projects are problem-oriented and designed to pro- duce results that have immediate application—for example, by providing incremental advances in practice or recommending improvements to spec- ifications and guidelines issued by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO's Standing Committee on Research selects NCHRP project topics, and TRB convenes expert panels that oversee the selection and work of a research contractor for each topic. Private-Sector Research There is no single, or even dominant, private-sector highway research pro- gram. Instead, private-sector R&T consists of separate programs con- ducted or sponsored by major national associations of private industry and engineering professions concerned with highway transportation and by companies that design and construct highways and supply highway-related products. Association research programs include those that have their own research staffs and laboratories as well as those that rely on contract

8 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS research. Annual funding by the association research programs identified for this report is roughly $21 million a year (see Chapter 3). Projects range from basic research on engineermg materials to studies of alternative reg- ulatory proposals. Except for a handful of major companies, research programs sponsored by individual companies are difficult to identify and characterize because of the hundreds of businesses involved and the proprietary nature of their R&T programs. For example, information on companies that manufacture construction equipment indicates that $65 million (or 7 percent) of their 1992 research and development (R&D) budgets is attributable to high- way construction equipment. Highway R&T Program Expenditures In 1993 the major federal (FHWA) and state (SP&R, NCHRP) research and technology programs spent about $275 million. When adjusted for inflation, this is a 250 percent increase over 1982 levels. Funding for all highway research activities, both public and private, is much more difficult to estimate because information about private-sector R&D is scarce. When expressed as a fraction of all industry expenditures, total R&D funding is probably on the order of 0.3 percent, a figure that is well below the R&T funding of other industries. R&T funding by high-technology industries, such as electronics and scientific instruments, is typically more than 5 per- cent of revenues. But even low-technology industries such as paper prod- ucts (0.8 percent), primary metals (0.9 percent), and petroleum refining (0.9 percent) spend more of their revenues on R&T than the highway industry spends. CURRENT R&T OBJECTiVES Breaking down highway R&T expenditures into major categories pro- vides an indication of overall program aims and gives a rough idea of the strengths and potential weaknesses of the current program. Any such breakdown must be regarded as approximate, however, because of the inevitable overlap among categories and data limitations that make it difficult to categorize precisely the funding of individual programs or projects. For this report, eight R&T categories were defined by committee con- sensus in an attempt to emphasize the underlying rationale for the activi- ties in each category. Table ES-2 presents a summary of rough estimates

Executive Summary 9 TABLE ES-2 Summary of Expenditures for Highway R&T Programs, 1993 EXPENDITURE [$ millions (%)] CATEGORY FHWA4 NCHRP STATES" TOTALC Incremental Improvements Breakthrough Research U.S. Transportation System Issues Policy Analysis and Regulatory Compliance Intermodal Transportation Technology Transfer/Field Applications Education and Training Technical Support and Testing Total'1 118 (59) 4.2(56) 10 (5) 1(13) 0.82 (<1) 0.3(4) 18.3(9) 0 0.5 (<1) 0.8(10) 22 (11) 1.1 (15) 19(10) 0.1(1) 12(6) 0 201 7.5 36.2 (54) 158 (58) 0 11(4) 0.07(d) 1.2(d) 0.2 (<1) 19 (7) 0.4 (<1) 1.7(d) 3.7(6) 27(9) 10(15) 29 (10) 16.8 (25) 29 (10) 67.4 276 'Federal funds for the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) arc included in the edu- cation and training category. bState data are based on a sample of 15 states that comprise more than 50 percent of SP&R spending. State expenditures have been factored upward to 100 percent of SP&R fi.inding. State LTPP and TRB Research Correlation Service contributions have been included in the education and training category. (See text for details about the sampling of states.) 'Total includes actual FHWA and NCHRP expenditures and estimated total state expendi- tures based on a 50 percent sample. dErrors in sums due to rounding. of spending by category for the three major public-sector research pro- grams: FHWA, SP&R, and NCHRP. The categories are described in the following sections. Category 1: Incremental Improvements in Highway Performance and Costs Research in Category 1 seeks improvements in highway performance and cost through evolutionary changes to current materials, designs, and con- struction and operational practices. It is the principal component of each of the major public-sector research programs, accounting for about 57 per- cent of all expenditures. And although insufficient data are available to con- firm this, much of the highway research undertaken by the private sector probably falls in this category.

10 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DlitecrloNs Category 2: Breakthrough Research To Improve Highway Performance and Costs Research in Category 2 has the same objectives as that in Category 1, but it attempts to achieve those objectives with breakthrough or innovative tecimologies that might lead to dramatic improvements in highway per- formance and cost. Compared with Category 1, this research is specula- tive, with relatively high risks but also potentially high payoffs. In 1993 FHWA and NCHRP devoted roughly 5 and 13 percent, respectively, of their R&T resources to research in this category—large increases over earlier years. For FHWA, which accounts for the bulk of the R&T funding in absolute terms, breakthrough research is principally related to the IVHS developments that apply to computer and other elec- tronic technology to improve the performance, capacity, and safety of high- ways. For NCHRP this research consists mostly of a recently initiated program (Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis, or IDEA) that Sup- ports the early development of promising concepts for new highway prod- ucts or methods proposed by individual or corporate researchers. Category 3: Reassessment of U.S. Transportation System and the Role of Highway Transportation Research in Category 3 takes a long-term view of highway transportation and its interaction with other modes, land use, the environment, and the national economy. Its aim is to support strategic planning for the nation's transportation system and its major subcomponents. In 1993 less than 1 percent of public-sector R&T funding fell into this category, with FHWA being the primary sponsor. Category 4: Compliance with Government Regulations and Policy Proposals Category 4 covers two types of research: (a) policy research that helps transportation agencies develop and assess proposals for changes (mostly short- and mid-range) in regulations, taxes, and other policies that affect highway transportation, and (b) research that assists highway agencies and others in complying with new regulations and policies once they are issued. About 7 percent of current public-sector R&T expenditures falls in this category. FHWA is the principal sponsor, but some states also fund mod- est amounts of policy- and regulatory-related research.

Executive Summary 11 Category 5: Improvements in Intermodal Transportation Services That Involve Highways Research in Category 5 addresses interconnections between highways and other modes and ways in which these interconnections can be modified or developed to improve door-to-door intermodal transportation services. Each of the major public-sector research programs spends a modest amount on research in this category; amounting to roughly 1 percent ofexpenditures. Most of this research appears to be related to the movement of freight; for example, some states with ports are studying problems related to landside port access. Category 6: Transfer of Promising Research Findings to Field Application Activities in Category 6 are intended to transfer promising research results to field use. The category includes studies, surveys, and other tasks that seek to better understand how to improve the effectiveness of the innova- tion process for highways as well as demonstrations, publications, special- ized training, and other activities intended to encourage the use of specific products or techniques. FHWA devoted about 11 percent of its 1993 R&T resources, or nearly $28 million, to support a full range of technology transfer activities. However, the funding is skewed toward demonstrations, which are increas- ingly directed at deploying IVHS technologies. State expenditures for technology transfer were more than $3.4 million; through its program of Synthesis reports, NCHKP spent nearly $1 million in this category. Category 7: Education and Training of Highway Professionals Education and training are not always considered to be part of an R&T program; however, an expanding body of knowledge views them as essen- tial to building the technology and knowledge base necessary for innova- tion. About 11 percent of total public-sector R&T funding fell into Category 7. The principal activities are the Local Technical Assistance Program and other training programs. Category 8: Other Research, Technical Support, and Testing Not all of the activities in R&T programs fall into the previous categories. For example, state highway agency research programs often include pre-

12 HIGHwAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECrIoNs liminary investigations or consultations related to local problems, such as premature failures, that may lead to new research or technology transfer activities. FHWA is supporting the start-up of a new organization to test private-sector highway products. And some state research programs include a unit that conducts routine acceptance tests on products and materials— work that, strictly speaking, is not research but is a necessary component of the innovation process. Altogether, nearly $30 miffion, about 11 percent, of R&T resources is devoted to activities in this category. The principal activities are materials testing and problem investigations in the state R&T programs and activi- ties related to the LTPP program in the FHWA program. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHWAY R&T PROGRAMS The overall highway R&T program has a solid foundation that has shown marked improvement over the past decade; considerable change has occurred even since ISTEA was passed late in 1991. The consumers of research results can tap into the program at different levels and in differ- ent ways because of its decentralized organization; R&T funding has risen in real terms for 10 years; the scope of the program has expanded to tackle chronic problems in a highly focused way and to search for breakthrough improvements in highway performance and cost; public/private research partnerships are increasing; and highway industry leadership strongly sup- ports R&T activities. Despite this good record, the highway R&T program must continue to evolve to confront the challenges of the next century. Compared with the present, the highway R&T program for the next decade should have the following characteristics: Expand scale and funding ofprogram. Current highway R&T fund- ing remains low compared with other low-tech industries, including such low-tech industries as textiles, mining, and paper product. SHRP has demonstrated that a highly focused pavement and bridge research program can yield useful products for the highway industry; many other areas of highway research have potential for large payoffs as well. The program should include more federal and state ftmds for R&T, more private-sector funding, more partnering among public agencies, and more cooperative efforts between the public and private sectors. Undertake additional exploratory and high-risk research. Research must help define the role of highways in the future and be part of the con-

Executive Summary 13 tingency planning process that explicitly recognizes that uncertainties exist about the future. And the R&T program should include more exploratory, high-risk research that could lead to significant performance and cost improvement through revolutionary changes via new technologies, mate- rials, and methods because the potential payoffs can be large. Take a broader perspective within the program. The future R&T pro- gram must be more inclusive, embracing the interactions between high- ways, other transportation modes, and nontransportation societal objectives, and it must examine other factors, such as maturing telecom- munications, technologies that are affecting many aspects of transporta- tion in varying degrees. This perspective must be placed in the context of the United States' high standard of living and its dependence on a flexi- ble personal transportation system and the desire to continue to improve the quality of life for all citizens. The mutual dependence of highway trans- portation, other societal goals and activities, and these other factors is increasingly apparent, and the public expects highway agencies to consider these interactions when making decisions. Address barriers to innovation more comprehensively. The barriers to innovation in the highway industry are rooted deeply in attitudes, indus- try organization, and procurement practices. As technologies become more complex, their implementation will also be more complex and require more training, forcing the R&T program to devote more attention to this part of the innovation process. Broaden research cooperation and increase coordination. FHWA should continue to expand its initiatives aimed at ensuring that other fed- eral agencies, as well as state and local agencies, are actively involved in its R&T efforts to help address the complex issues facing the highway trans- portation system. It should also enhance cooperative efforts with the pri- vate sector to help ensure that private-sector research findings are accepted and implemented as quickly and thoroughiy as possible. Finally, FHWA should be a leader in identifying and taking advantage of research activi- ties conducted throughout the world inasmuch as highway agencies everywhere are faced with many similar challenges and conduct research on many similar problems. EMPHASIS AREAS FOR FUTURE HIGHWAY R&T Although the purpose of this report is to provide an overview of highway R&T, the process identified some needs that call for greater emphasis and resources in the highway R&T program immediately. The following list,

14 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CuRRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTuRE DI1aIoNs although not comprehensive, contams topics that the committee believes should be included in future research agendas; additional topics may be added as a result of additionaiwork by the committee. Reassessment of U.S. Transportation System and the Role of Highways Even without current environmental initiatives, there would be some uncertainty about the future role of highway transportation, and more research on this topic would be warranted. The fact that the nation depends on the highway system to meet the majority of its transportation needs is not likely to change anytime soon. However, additions to the high- way and transportation systems require close scrutiny to ensure that each improves overall system efficiency; new planning and evaluation tools will be needed to make such determinations. A better understanding of other issues, such as the interrelationships between alternative land use scenarios and transportation and the effects of pricing and other behavior modification approaches on congestion, is necessary for making informed decisions on policy options. Realizing that changes in the system cannot occur overnight, the committee believes strongly that the question of what the highway transportation system should be like in 20 years or more, ought to be addressed and that a strate- gic direction should be established. Environmental Research The environmental issues associated with highways are far-reaching and involve the planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of highway systems; they include impacts on air quality, surface water, groundwater, wetlands, noise, and archeological and historic sites. Highway R&T programs should focus on topics that are specific to trans- portation; for other topics, cooperative research should be undertaken jointly with non-highway groups to best use available research funds and to help achieve results that can be adopted by all parties. Research should be steered at A better understanding of the extent to which transportation (in par- ticular, vehicular traffic) contributes to various local, national, and inter- national environmental problems; 9 Knowledge about the costs, effectiveness, and other consequences

Executive Summary 15 of design changes, material choices, system performance, and policy pro- posals whose objectives to reduce harm to the environment are related to transportation; and Realistic guidance about how strategies that use transportation-related activities, such as recycling waste products in highway construction, can be used to achieve environmental benefits while meeting established require- ments for safety, reliability, durability, and cost-effectiveness developed to protect public investments. Contracting for Innovation Contracting and procurement practices for both highway R&T and high- way construction are important to innovation in highway transportation because they affect the time involved in implementing innovations. FHWA has recently reviewed its R&T-related contracting and procurement prac- tices and is putting to use several new approaches designed to improve its system. Studies showing that the introduction of innovations is a slow process also recognize that many procedures are in place to reduce risk, protect investments, and ensure accountability. For example, the traditional pro- cedure of low-bid contracting with method specifications accomplishes these goals, but it also discourages innovation and fails to support the over- all purpose of reducing life-cycle costs through improved performance and durability. State and local agencies in the United States are reluctant to abandon such a proven approach without an equally effective, and proven, alternative that provides similar protection. Research is needed to deter- mine the extent to which such practices impede innovation and the alter- natives or incentives that are available to encourage the use of innovations. This research should involve private-sector contractors to help identif;,i appropriate solutions. Support for Breakthrough Research Although some resources are being focused on breakthrough research, pri- marily IVHS activities and the IDEA programs (NCHRP; Transit Cooperative Research Program, or TCRP; and IVHS), these resources are small and there is no assured strategy for following up on promising IDEA projects. Nevertheless, there are promising signs that R&T is acknowl- edged as an essential part of defining the future highway system, both from federal policy makers (as evidenced by ISTEA) and from state highway offi-

16 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURPJNT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS cials (whose participation in and response to the SHRP activities have been positive). When FHWA is examining what the nation's future highway system will look like, it could also be identifying potential breakthrough topics needed to achieve such a system. And if a portion of current defense conversion activities is directed to highway transportation problems, another oppor- tunity exists for addressing potential breakthrough research topics. Technical skills in areas such as high-strength concrete, nondestructive evaluation, and accelerated testing procedures might be matched with spe- cific highway transportation system needs to benefit the field. Resistance to Long-Term and Intermodal Research Many of the emphasis areas discussed earlier require highly complex and long-term research that cuts across traditional modal boundaries and have not been considered adequately in the past; they also involve aspects out- side the traditional transportation mainstream.4 Addressing some of these areas is difficult because of the following: There is not much opportunity for long-term funding support where such a commitment is needed to achieve meaningful results; support for FHWA's LTPP program is a noteworthy exception. There is little support for R&D that cuts across traditional modal boundaries; this is a particular problem in dealing with some of the envi- ronmental initiatives and intermodal transportation issues Even though highway infrastructure is built to last a long time and has considerable long-term effects on all sectors of the economy and society, there is little or no incentive to develop tools and methods to examine and estimate these effects; research could be useful in provid- ing decision makers with the means to evaluate alternative actions more thoroughly. CONCLUDING COMMENTS With the Interstate highway system being virtually complete and ISTEA refocusing surface transportation, there is ample reason to begin thinking anew about highway R&T. The challenges that highway agencies face are For example, research into high-performance construction materials would affect all trans- portation modes and buildings and facilities in other infrastructure categories as well.

Executive Summtry 17 complex problems requiring equally complex solutions. Initiatives such as the Interagency Coordinating Committee for Transportation Research and Development within the National Science and Technology Council could help bring about greater interagency cooperation in research efforts aimed at developing solutions. Of immediate importance is the need to articulate the future role of highways in the U.S. transportation system; the proposed National Highway System could be a helpful first step in defining this role and in establishing the nation's intermodal transportation system. Among the many factors, trends, and events that affect innovation in the highway industry are two that could have a significant effect on the success of highway R&T activities in the future: the education and train- ing of highway engineers and technicians, and the changing organizational environments of FHWA and state highway agencies caused by downsizing at both levels. Both are important, the first because the usefulness of R&D products can be jeopardized if highway engineers and technicians cannot adopt and use them, and the second because downsizing forces major changes in the ways in which R&D is managed and its products are used. The next step for the committee will be to examine several of these topics in greater detail while continuing to evaluate specific FHWA program pro- posals so that more specific research recommendations can be developed. I'i4(S) Z. F AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials FHWA Federal Highway Administration IDEA Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 IVHS intelligent vehicle-highway system LTAP Local Technical Assistance Program LTPP Long-Term Pavement Performance NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program R&D research and development R&T research and technology SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program SP&R State Planning and Research TRB Transportation Research Board

I Introduction Americans depend on highways. They use highways for nearly 90 per-cent of their travel, and virtually all freight travels by highway for some portion of its journey to the marketplace. Since the advent of the motor age, the United States has constructed the premier highway sys- tem in- the world: a 3.9 miffion—mile system for which new capital outlays total more than $30 billion a year (DOT 1991). So, as the nation searches for a recipe for increased economic growth, it is increasingly apparent that good transportation—including good highway transportation—is an essen- tial ingredient. At the same time, the nation's highway system has serious problems. For example, many urban highways are overburdened by traffic, but the money, community will, and space for further expansion are often lacking. Moreover, because automobiles and trucks are major contributors to air pollution and its related health effects, new federal environmental regula- tions prohibit federal-aid highway improvements in areas that do not meet air quality standards unless they are part of plans that will yield net reduc- tions in emissions. Highway transportation also affects public health through automobile crashes. Even though fatalities have been dropping steadily in recent years, they still total nearly 40,000 a year (N}{TSA 1993). And the system is showing its age. Rehabilitation and repair needs have never been greater: the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that the cost of eliminating the backlog of highway deficiencies for existing arte- 18

Introduction 19 nal and collector highways is $400 billion (DOT 1991). Many rural roads have repair needs that are not being met because funds are unavailable and because safe and timely repair of many heavily traveled urban and subur- ban highways is very difficult if traffic is maintained on them. All of these problems must be addressed in the short term; taken together, they raise critical questions about the long-term role of highways in the United States. The United States is known for high technology and for innovative ways of applying such technology. Examples abound in aerospace, defense, med- icine, and electronics. Yet despite the importance of the highway system and the many critical challenges it faces, it is not often seen as a promis- ing candidate for research and technology (R&T) activities.5 In 1984 the Transportation Research Board convened a special committee to under- take the Strategic Transportation Research Study for Highways (STRS). The STRS committee attributed much of the public disinterest in highway research to the familiar, unglamorous nature of highway technology, and its report, America's Highways: Accelerating the Search for Innovation (TRB 1984), noted disturbingly low levels of research funding in the high- way field, even when compared with "low-tech" industries. For example, the committee found that industries such as fuel, textiles, mining, and paper spend 0.5 to 1.2 percent of their sales on research and development (R&D) whereas the highway industry spends less than 0.2 percent on R&D.' A study prepared by the Civil Engineering Research Foundation examined civil engineering—related R&D in the United States and esti- mated that only about 0.5 percent of the total value of all construction was spent on civil engineering R&D (CERF 1993). As the nation began the process of rebuilding its highway system, the STRS committee foresaw an opportunity for significant cost savings through the use of better materials, methods, and management practices. For these savings to be realized, the committee argued that an expanded research program was necessary and recommended a 5-year, $150 mil- lion special program focused on some of the largest, most pervasive prob- lems in the areas of materials and maintenance. In 1987 Congress authorized the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), which R&T activities include basic research, applied research, development, dmonstration, tech- nology transfer, and education. 2 The committee recognizes that although direct comparisons with other industries are dif- ficult for several reasons, the percentages show such a low level of research investment for highways that the comparisons should be noted.

20 Hu.;Hw!\Y REsEARch: CuItRENT PROGR,\MS AND FUTURE DhIucrIoNs began a modest renaissance in highway R&T activity in the United States that still continues. The Intermodal Surfiicc Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), for example, authorized increased kderal funding for highway research, especially in the area of intelligent vehicle-highway sys- tems (IVHS). The legislation also required states to increase the minimum share of highway federal aid that they devote to research. Figure 1-1 shows historical transportation R&T appropriations by 1,200 1,000 800 600 DOTTOTAL\ 400 200 Offitltiij$1 Iiii* [FAA FHWA NHTSA a'USCG FTA FRA i- MARAD OST RSPA 80 85 90 93 1,200 (I) a: 1,000 800 600 U) 400 200 o 70 75 FISCAL YEAR FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FAA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration MARAD Maritime Administration NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration OST Office of the Secretary of Transportation RSPA Research and Special Programs Administration USCG U.S. Coast Guard FIGURE 1-1 U.S. Department of Transportation R&D appropriations by organization, in constant 1992 dollars (source: Volpe National Transportation Systems Canter).

introduction 21 (million $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 Space 'ay Assessment Infrastructure Infrastructure FIGURE 1-2 Fcdcral funding for R&D directly relevant to transportation: approximately $2.9 billion in FY 1994 (source: Volpe National Transportation Systems center). modal agcncy. Corning ater a dccrcase in funding throughout the 1980s, the ISTEA legislation increased the R&T budget of the Federal Highway Administration, particularly in the area of IVHS. For fiscal year 1994, Figure 1-2 shows R&D spending in transportation-related areas. OBJECTIVE OF REPORT I)uring the past decade, the U.S. highway R&T program has changed: its scale has increased, the iiurnber of participating institutions has grown, its technical direction has altered, and, most important, its visibility within the highway and transportation coinmunmes has increased. Highway research is seen as a means of addressing the array of problems cited earlier. The increased visibility and interest in highway R&T leads ifle\'itablv to questions about the nature, organization, and rationale for the program. As a first step in addressing these questions, this report seeks to provide a

22 HIGHwAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS broad overview of highway R&T.3 It attempts to portray the current high- way R&T program at a level that matches the interests of policy makers, top agency officials, and others who need to understand the program and exercise broad program oversight. The report also presents the commit- tee's own framework for classifying highway R&T activities and maps 1993 R&T spending in terms of the categories of that framework. The report presents recommendations that describe the committee's vision of how highway R&T programs should be redirected to meet the needs of the highway transportation system of the next century. This overview is also intended to aid the work of the authoring com- mittee, the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee, which was established in part because of the increased interest and support for high- way R&T and the need for independent review and coordination on a con- tinuing basis. CONTEXT OF REPORT Highway R&T has been addressed with the understanding that the high- way system is only a part of the nation's transportation system. Even though the report focuses on the highway R&T program supported by funds from federal and state highway agencies, the committee recognizes that the highway system is not an independent entity and that there are many relationships and interdependencies among all transportation modes. Consequently, the committee has addressed several multimodal R&T issues.4 ISTEA has made multimodal considerations a must, and the con- clusions and recommendations point to some of these that should be addressed. In recognition of recent initiatives aimed at developing a vision for sustainable transportation for the nation, the committee supports efforts to establish a vision for the nation's future highway system and the report presents R&T priorities related to both visions. It is important to acknowledge that the nation's current highway sys- tem reflects many accomplishments from previous R&T program efforts leading to cost reductions and performance improvements for everything The effectiveness of individual R&T programs is not assessed in this report; as the com- mittee continues its work, it will examine how well the research is achieving its stated goals. The committee was created to provide a continuing independent assessment of the FHWA R&T program and to develop broad-based priority recommendations for the years ahead. The committee recognizes the need to monitor R&T activities in other modes and in other programs to assist in efforts to coordinate research on a wider scale.

Introduction 23 from asphalt pavement to traffic signal systems. Although the commit- tee focused on just a snapshot of the program activities, principally those funded in FY 1993, it strove to examine them in the light of previous efforts, recognizing the continuing nature of the program. Moreover, the program continues to evolve even as budget priorities change 'and as new information and data are available, and as new technologies, both within and outside the highway industry, are developed and become mature. Finally, it is also important to note the key role of the private sector in highway R&T. Private-sector consultants and researchers perform much contract R&D, and many private firms conduct and contract for research in support of the industry. In addition, the private sector is the ultimate user of many of today's highway research products. This report describes several recent public/private R&T cooperative initiatives while urging greater engagement of the private sector within the R&T program. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT To understand the highway R&T activity, one must first understand some- thing about the highway industry in the United States. Accordingly, Chapter 2 profiles the industry as a prelude to the summary of existing highway R&T programs presented in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 introduces a framework for classifying highway R&T activities according to their under- lying rationale. Chapter 5 "maps" existing programs on this framework and presents some conclusions about the overall balance of current R&T activities and where some redirection of emphasis is needed. Chapter 6 pre- sents some suggestions and recommendations for the highway R&T pro- gram that reflect the committee's vision of the highway transportation system needs for the next century. REFERENCES CEKF. 1993. A Nationwide Survey of Civil Engineering—Related R&D. Report 93-5006. December. DOT. 1991. The Status of the Nation's Highways and Bridges: Conditions and Performance. Report of the Secretary of Transportation to the U.S. Congress, September. NHTSA. 1993. 1992 Preliminary Report on Traffic Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities. U.S. Department of Transportation. TRB. 1984. Special Report 202: America's Highways: Accelerating the Search for Innovation. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

24 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CuB.RENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS ABBREVIATIONS CERF Civil Engineering Research Foundation DOT U.S. Department of Transportation ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 IVHS intelligent vehicle-highway system NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration R&D research and development R&T research and technology SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program STRS Strategic Transportation Research Study TRE Transportation Research Board

The Highway Industry T he highway industry in the United States is a large, highly decentral-ized public/private enterprise that is vital to the nation's economy. The unique character of this industry creates an unusual set of opportu- nities and barriers for innovation that have shaped highway research and technology (R&T) programs. As background for later discussion of R&T programs, this chapter pre- sents a brief profile of the industry, summarizes highway spending, and reviews the current challenges and problems confronting the industry.' PROFILE OF HIGHWAY INDUSTRY As used in this report, "highway industry" includes the federal, state, and local government agencies that construct, maintain, and administer America's public highways. It also includes the private companies that sup- ply materials, equipment, and services used by these public agencies to con- struct, operate, and maintain highways. However, the report does not address other aspects of the transportation industry that are important parts of the overall highway system, including vehicle and vehicle parts manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing; vehicle services, repair opera- tions, and parking; petroleum supply and distribution attributable to vehi- 'This chapter draws on material presented in Chapter 1 of Special Report 202: America's Highways: Accelerating the Search for Innovation (TRB 1984). 25

26 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS cle use; and truck operations and terminal facilities. Key characteristics of the industry are summarized in the following sections. Size of Highway Industry The highway industry has built, and now maintains, a highway system con- sisting of almost 3.9 million miles that provides accessibility to virtually every populated hamlet in the country. Its pieces range from two-lane unpaved roads to multilane controlled-access highways. In terms of traf- fic served, the Interstate highways are the workhorses of the system, car- rying 23 percent of all vehicle miles of travel (VMT). All together, the Interstate and other federally designated highways form a subsystem of just over 800,000 miles that carries about 50 percent of all VMT (FHWA 1992a). Highway officials often note that the days of building brand new high- ways are mostly over and that the task before them is largely one of main- taining and upgrading the current system. This is true, but it has been true for many years. By 1920 the system already included more than 3 million miles (Pisarski 1987), and since then the highway industry has been engaged in a constant process of upgrading this mileage to accommodate more traffic at higher speeds and with greater safety. Notwithstanding other modal alternatives and the potential effects of advances in telecom- munications on travel demand, all indications are that additional highway construction, as well as upgrading, repair, and rehabilitation of existing highways, will be needed in the future to accommodate economic devel- opment and changing travel needs. Economic Impact of Highway Industry By almost any measure, the highway industry has enormous impact on the economic well-being of the United States and the lifestyle of its residents. Roughly 80 percent of all U.S. expenditures for passenger and freight transportation, or about $800 billion annually, are highway-related; high- way passenger transportation expenditures alone are more than $350 bil- lion. These highway expenditures account for about 12 percent of the gross domestic product. Freight movement over the highways accounts for nearly 80 percent of the nation's freight bill (DOT 1994). Intercity freight movement over highways accounts for nearly 39 percent of the nation's freight bill and about 80 percent of intercity passenger-miles of travel is by automobile (Smith 1993).

The Hghway Industry 27 Decentralized Administration of Highway System State and local governments are the primary owners and administrators of the highway system. Altogether, about 39,000 public agencies from states, counties, cities, and other units of local government administer pieces of the highway system (FHWA 1992b). The federal government plays a significant role in financing highway construction, but it owns and directly administers just 5 percent of the highway system, consisting pri- marily of roads on public lands (e.g., military bases, parks, national forests) (Table 2-1). State and local governments own and operate the highway system. Much of the focus of federal activities, particularly since the cre- ation of the Highway Trust Fund for highway financing, has been on con- struction and rehabilitation. Once federal-aid highways are built, state and local governments are responsible for their operation and maintenance. This has affected the research programs as well: federal R&T focuses on construction and rehabilitation (states can use federal funds for resurfac- ing, restoration, and rehabilitation but not for routine maintenance); state R&T focuses on operations and maintenance. Role of Dispersed Private Companies Public agencies own and administer the highway system, but these agen- cies depend on private companies to produce and deliver a wide array of materials, equipment, and services. Although the total market for highway products is often large, individual highway agencies are usually not the major customers of their suppliers. For example, total highway construc- TABLE 2-1 U.S. Highway Mileage Classified by Administrative Responsibility (FHWA 1992a, DOC 1993) No. OF ADMINISTRATORS AGENCIES MILES (%) Federal agency 5 182,411 (5) State agency 51 800,589 (21) County agency 3,043 1,726,629 (44) Town and township 16,666 483,631 (12) Municipal 19,296 526,232 (13) Other local - 182,244 (5) Toll highway authority - 4,692 (<1) Total 39,061 3,901,715

28 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIoNs tion represents 15 percent of total portland cement sales and 18 percent of structural steel sales, but any single project uses only a small fraction of each product. Similarly, highways are the major user of asphalt cement, but asphalt cement represents only a tiny share of the total market for petro- leum products (TRB 1984). The highway construction industry, which includes engineering firms, suppliers, contractors, and equipment manufacturers, is highly fragmented. In part this fragmentation is simply a reflection of how the U.S. construc- tion industry is organized; there is relatively little vertical or horizontal inte- gration. For instance, different companies may supply the sand, crushed stone, cement, and other additives that another company mixes together to produce concrete; the concrete is delivered to still another company for use in a construction project. About 130 companies produce portland cement, 1,069 produce asphalt paving mixtures, 2,264 produce construc- tion sand and gravel, 5,034 operate ready-mix concrete plants, and more than 8,670 are highway/street contractors (DOC 1990) (Table 2-2). The total number of companies, large and small, involved in highway con- struction and maintenance activities and their suppliers is probably in the tens of thousands. Construction materials are heavy, low-value goods for which trans- portation costs are a large part of total costs. This situation gives local sup- pliers a competitive edge and contributes to industry fragmentation. In addition, in many communities, highway spending represents a large share of all public expenditures for goods and services; as a result, political pres- sures develop to funnel these funds to local firms. According to the Bureau of the Census, only about 12 percent of highway construction contractors undertake projects outside of their home states; for these contractors, half of their income is still derived from in-state projects (DOC 1991). Lack of Incentives for Innovation Compared with industries that produce automobiles, refrigerators, or stereos for the consumer market, neither the public nor the private side of the highway industry has strong incentives for innovation. On the public side, highway agencies operate as virtual monopolies and face no regular market pressures to improve service and reduce costs. Like any government agency, they face periodic pressure from legislative and other oversight bodies to cut costs, and these pressures can encourage innovation, especially when agency management is oriented toward research. But without regular, competitive forces, it takes considerable

TABLE 2-2 Selected Revenue and Employment Data Illustrating Dispersed Nature of Companies Involved in Highway Construction, 1990 (DOC 1993) AVERAGE ANNUAL Fiis BY No. OF REVENUES BY No. OF No. OF REVENUES EMPLOYEES (%) EMPLOYEES (%) SECTOR Frnivis ($ MILLIONS) <20 <100 <500 <20 <100 <500 Highway and street construction contractors 8,673 3.8 69 90 97 18 50 85 Bridge, tunnel, and elevated highway contractors 868 6.8 48 84 94 9 42 77 Ready-mix concrete 5,034 2.3 42 68 83 16 52 77 Construction sand and gravel 2,264 1.6 58 73 85 23 48 67 Asphalt paving mixtures 1,069 3.2 23 43 66 22 55 78 NOTE: In contrast, there are 229 hydraulic cement suppliers, with average annual revenues of$12.8 million. Fifty percent of these companies have fewer than 500 employees and control only 21 percent of the total revenues. There are 340 firms involved in petroleum refining, with average annual revenues of $175.9 million. Forty-six percent of these firms have fewer than 500 employees and control only 8 percent of the total revenues.

30 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIP.ECTIONS leadership and discipline to resist the temptation to cut costs by simply reducing service and to keep public agencies focused on the search for new methods that lower costs while providing equal or better service. On the private side, firms have little incentive to innovate because bet- ter products do not always result in better sales. Public agencies purchase highway goods and services through a competitive process that is based on rigid "method" specifications and that awards contracts to the bidder with the lowest cost. Unfortunately, the specifications sometimes have little to do with real performance or life-cycle cost. A supplier who can use a new product that meets specifications and delivers better performance at some- what higher cost, even on a highly cost-effective basis, will be at a com- petitive disadvantage by using the product. And if the product does not meet current specifications—regardless of its cost-effectiveness—it will be difficult to use until existing specifications are revised. Low-Technology Image of Highway Industry Concrete construction dates back at least 2,000 years, and petroleum- derived cements have been used in road building for roughly two centuries. The fact that these materials have been in use for so long leads many peo- ple to assume that the performance of these materials is well understood and that there is little room for further innovation in their use. The truth is that the composition of many basic construction materials is very complex. Engineers often are unable to predict accurately the field performance of materials and must rely on empirically based design meth- ods. Despite decades of experience with asphaltic concrete, for example, the highway industry was unable to explain premature failures of asphalt pavements in the 1970s and 1980s, a period during which refining tech- niques and the sources of crude oil were changing. The industry lacked fundamental knowledge about asphalt chemistry. Partially in response to this situation, a special research program—the Strategic Highway Research Program—was initiated in 1987. Two other problems arise from the low-tech image of the highway industry. First, the implication is that highway transportation is not an area in which "advanced" technology is needed. There are, however, many examples of advanced technology applications in the highway industry: computer-managed traffic control systems, automated design techniques, and nondestructive testing methods are just a few of them. More impor- tant, there may be opportunities for significantly improving highway capac- ity, level of service, and safety through the aggressive development of

The Highway Industry 31 integrated highway and vehicle systems that apply new computer and com- munications technologies. Second, given the rising difficulties and costs associated with solid waste disposal, some people see highway construction as a logical opportunity for recycling certain waste products, usually as fill material or as additives to portland cement or asphaltic concrete. Such practices have been in use for years and often have merit. But sometimes proposals for using waste products or recycled products appear to assume without foundation that the performance and cost of highway construction will not be affected. HIGHWAY SPENDING Industry spending provides another measure of scale and a benchmark for assessing the size of R&T activities. The highway industry, asdefined here, spends about $84 billion a year. This amount is more than that spent by either the airline industry ($60 billion) or the railroad industry ($34 bil- lion) and approaches that spent in aircraft manufacturing ($102 billion).2 Almost all highway spending-99 percent—is done by state and local agencies that administer the system. States administer less than half of the system in terms of mileage, but they administer the more heavily used, higher-capacity highways and account for 61 percent of total highway spending (Table 2-3). Nearly half of all highway spending falls under the category of con- struction, reconstruction, and other capital outlays. Maintenance and traf- fic services account for another quarter of the spending. All other spending amounts to less than 30 percent of the total (Table 2-3). Purchases of specific goods and services are not reported on a consis- tent nationwide basis, but the Federal Highway Administration does report a breakdown of purchases for large (over $1 million) federal-aid con- struction contracts completed in 1992 (Table 2-4). These figures exclude right-of-way acquisition, design, and other agency costs; nevertheless, they do provide some insight into typical spending patterns of large construc- tion contracts. About 43 percent of contract costs is attributable to mate- rials and supplies, another 22 percent to wages, and 36 percent to equipment and contractor overhead and fees. If these figures are extrapo- 2}1ghway spending is the Federal Highway Administration's 1992 estimate (FHWA 1992a). The other figures should be taken as rough indicators of spending since the definitions are not consistent. The railroad and airline figures are 1991 billing estimates (Smith 1993). The aircraft manu1cturing figure represents 1989 shipment value (DOC 1993). New motor vehi- cles and equipment account for $206 billion in expenditures.

TABLE 2-3 Distribution of Highway Expenditures, 1992 (FHWA 1992a) DISTRIBUTION AMOUNT [$ BILLIONS (%)] Government unit Federal 0.724 (1) State 50.785 (60) Local (counties, townships, municipalities) 32.832 (39) Total 84.341 Type of highway activity Construction, reconstruction, and 38.708 (46) other capital outlays Maintenance and traffic services 22.878 (27) Administration and research 7.717 (9) Law enforcement and safety 7.091 (8) Interest on debt and bond retirements 7.947 (9) Total 84.341 Revenue source Motor fuel and vehicle taxes 48.5 19 (58) Tolls . 3.329 (4) Other taxes and fees 7.283 (9) General fund appropriations 12.308 (15) Net bond issues, other income, reserves 12.902 (15) Total 84.341 TABLE 2-4 Distribution of Costs on Large Federal-Aid Highway Construction Contracts Completed in 1992 (FHWA 1992a) COST DISTRIBUTION (%) Wages 21.5 Materials and supplies Aggregates 14.0 Portland cement 4.7 Bitumens 6.1 Steel 5.6 Other materials and supplies 12.5 Subtotal 42.9 Equipment, overhead, and profit 35.6 100 NOTE: Includes contracts over $1 million; excludes all projects on secondary highway system.

The Highway Industry 33 lated to total spending on construction and reconstruction, with a 20 per- cent allowance for design and right of way, agency contractors spend about $12 billion a year for basic construction materials and other supplies. This figure excludes contractor labor costs as well as the cost of materials pur- chased for mamtenance, which are substantial, so it certainly understates highway spending for materials. PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES FACING HIGHWAY INDUSTRY The highway industry is in a time of transition. It is moving from a period, lasting about 35 years, during which the construction of the Interstate sys- tem was the centerpiece of the U.S. highway program. Now that the Interstate system is virtually complete, the highway industry no longer has such a clear strategy, and the path ahead is uncertain. It could well be that the industry will never again be so focused on one major initiative. Whichever path is followed now, it will be determined by how policy mak- ers respond to a variety of emerging problems and challenges. The major ones are the following: Congestion. Although the construction of new roads has tapered off, traffic continues to grow and demand for facility expansion continues. During the 1980s, VMT increased by 41 percent (FHWA 1992b). The nation's population continues to increase, and this is an important factor in traffic growth. But per capita, Americans are making more and longer trips than ever before, and they make a smaller share of trips on transit or in multioccupant automobiles (Pisarski 1992). Environment and energy. State and local highway agencies now face stringent new air quality requirements and deadlines, enacted as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. These requirements could be a sig- nificant obstacle to congestion-motivated plans to increase highway capac- ity in areas that do not meet federal air quality standards. Even if these requirements are met, concerns about the long-term sustainability of the highway system will exist as long as the system contributes to air pollution, global warming, and the depletion of limited energy resources. Highway safety. For two decades the United States has worked to improve highway safety by making the automobile safer, building "more forgiving" highways, and enacting tougher drunk driving laws. These mea- sures have paid off: the fatal accident rate (fatalities per mile driven) is at its lowest point ever, and despite significant growth in automobile travel,

34 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CuIu.ENT PROGRAMS AND FuTuax DI1ucrIoNs the number of annual fatalities is at its lowest point since the early 1960s (NHTSA 1993; HUFSAM 1991). Nevertheless, highway accidents con- tinue to be a serious public health problem. In 1992 nearly 40,000 per- Sons died as a result of traffic accidents, and this number will rise again unless new safety measures are developed and introduced that offset the effect of the inexorable growth in automobile travel. Renovation and renewal. As the effects of a maturing highway sys- tem become more and more evident, upgrading, repair, and rehabilitation are needed to protect the nation's highway investment. Accommodating improved materials and highway and bridge design standards and the need for specialized construction practices while carrying out needed repairs safely and efficiently and maintaining local traffic service often strains the capabilities of local highway agencies and contractors. Setting repair pri- orities for low-volume rural roads, roads that are important to local economies as well as the national economy, is another critical issue for high- way administrators. Highway finance. Highway agencies encounter recurring demands to operate the highway system with smaller budgets (in real terms) and with smaller staffs. Increasingly, the burden for highway finance is being passed to local governments, where budgetary pressures are especially keen. Between 1970 and 1990 the federal and state shares of total highway expen- ditures declined while the local share increased from 17 to 27 percent (FHWA 1992a). This shift has put additional pressure on local government units already strapped for funds: urban areas fce growing demands for social programs; rural areas with dwindling population densities face eroding tax bases. As financial pressures increase, the continuing debates about financ- ing responsibilities among different levels of government will intensify. Complex institutional arrangements. Within many metropolitan areas, a number of state and local jurisdictions share the responsibility for admin- istering the highway system. This situation creates an obvious need for coordinated planning, and it means that day-to-day operations and man- agement functions must be coordinated as well. The complexity of these administrative arrangements could be a sizable barrier to system manage- ment strategies that require areawide coverage, real-time coordination, and common political will. Highways and society. Just as the Interstate system had some unin- tended consequences, current efforts to improve the highway system are likely to have some as well. Although it is impossible to anticipate all the possible ramifications of system changes, increased public involvement in the planning process will focus attention on issues such as privacy, neigh-

The Highway Industry 35 borhood, viability, needs of users of nonmotorized transportation, and access for the disadvantaged. Similarly, factors such as an aging population, whose members increasingly will be losing their driving permits, and a growing immigrant population with limited English language skills, whose members will be obtaining their driving permits, will have implications for the design and operation of the highway and transportation systems. IMPLICATIONS FOR R&T ACTIVTTIES The character of the highway industry and the challenges that it faces have several implications for R&T activities. First, the fragmented, decentralized nature of the industry means that R&T activities must include special efforts—through organizational or other means—to keep close ties with potential research customers to help ensure that implementation takes place.3 Because the industry is a joint public/private enterprise, R&T management and monitoring should involve both sectors. Second, decentralization, along with complex institutional arrangements (including contracting and procurement regulations, detailed design spec- ifications, and the lack of incentives for innovation) hinders speedy appli- cation of promising techniques and products. Technology transfer in the highway industry is extremely difficult, and this difficulty can be overcome only if technology transfer activities receive special attention in highway R&T programs. Third, the substantial and regular spending on construction, mainte- nance, and basic materials implies that even modest performance improve- ments or cost reductions can pay off big in the long run. Thus, highway R&T should probably always include a considerable portion aimed at these basic activities. Finally, growing congestion and environmental concerns create a need for strategic research about the future role of highway transportation, ways in which the system should be managed, and the place of the highway sys- tem in the nation's transportation system. These concerns also create opportunities for new technologies that might reduce congestion and adverse environmental impacts.4 It should be rccognizcd that some breakthrough research focuscd on a vision of the future highway system will include componcnts for which the customer is not ncccssarily known yet. The strategic research should also examine the range of factors that can affect travel demand in the future, including telecommunications technologies.

36 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIREcTIoNs REFERENCES DOC. 1990. Enterprise Statistics, Table A. DOC. 1991. 1987Enterprise Statistics. Company Summary ES 87-3. DOC. 1993. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1993. DOT. 1994. Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1994. Bureau of Statistics, January. FHWA. 1992a. Highway Statistics 1992. Report FHWA-PL-93-023. U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation. FHWA. 1992b. Our Nation's Highways, Selected Facts and Figures. Report FHWA- PL-92-004. U.S. Department of Transportation. HUFSAM. 1991. 1991 Highway Fact Book. Washington, D.C. NHTSA. 1993. 1992 Preliminary Report on Traffic Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities. U.S. Department of Transportation. Pisarski, A. 1987. The Nations's Public Works: Report on Highways, Streets, Roads and Bridges. National Council on Public Works Improvement, Washington, D.C., May. Pisarski, A. 1992. Travel Behavior Issues in the 90's. Report FHWA-PL-93-012. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, July. Smith, F. 1993. Transportation in America, 11th ed. Eno Foundation, Lansdowne, Va. TRB. 1984. Special Report 202: America's Highways: Accelerating the Search for Innovation. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. ABBREVIATIONS - DOC U.S. Department of Commerce FHWA Federal Highway Administration HUFSAM Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration R&T research and technology TRB Transportation Research Board VMT vehicle miles of travel

Highway Research and Technology Programs T he large and fragmented highway industry is served by a highly dis-persed research community, which includes federal, state, and local transportation agencies, universities, national associations, and private firms. In recent years, Congress has also assumed a more prominent role in the establishment and direction of research and technology (R&T) pro- grams and activities. This chapter identifies the various highway-related R&T programs and characterizes them according to their underlying goals and rationale. The first section summarizes the focus, scope, and organi- zation of both public- and private-sector highway R&T programs and related activities. The second examines spending by program and compares overall spending levels with those in other industries. MAJOR HIGHWAY R&T PROGRAMS AND RELATED ACTIVITIES Federal Highway Administration The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is the largest sponsor of highway research. FHWA appropriations in 1993 included $168.5 million for research and $32.5 million for technology transfer activities. Most of the agency's research is coordinated and managed by its Office of Research and Development 37

38 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS (HRD) under the Associate Administrator for Research and Development; the prime responsibility for technology transfer is assigned to the Office of Technology Applications, located under the Associate Administrator for Safety and System Applications. Other FHWA offices, including the Office of Motor Carriers, Office for Policy, and Office for Program Development, coordinate and manage research related to their own areas of responsibil- ity, often in support of policy development, rule-making proceedings, and programmatic activities. Figure 3-1 identifies the FHWA offices that con- duct, manage, and fund R&T activities. Office of Research and Development Contract Research In 1993 HRD funded approximately $119.2 million of research and development (R&D) expenditures ($53.7 million in 1992). Most projects are contracted to private firms, universities, state transportation agencies, and other federal laboratories. There are about 500 active R&D procurements each year. Most of the multiyear studies have annual allocations between $200,000 and $500,000 and last for 2 to 4 years; in fiscal year 1992 about 30 activities exceeded $1 million, and in FY 1993, 45 activities exceeded $1 million.' Typically, HRD's research projects have been aimed at problems iden- tified by FHWA's engineering and program staff, state highway officials, and others in a wide range of technical areas including highway design and construction, traffic operations, highway structures, and materials and pavements. Examples include field tests of corrosion protection for bridges, performance evaluations of rigid and flexible pavements, and studies of chemically modified asphalt mixes. In recent years, FHWA has diversified its contract research program in response to new legislative requirements, growth in intelligent vehicle-highway systems (IVHS), and the shift in the federal highway program away from new construction and toward main- taining and upgrading the existing highway system. As a consequence, recent topics have included investigations of countermeasures to prevent truck accidents on urban Interstates, evaluations of signing designs for older drivers, and the development of computer models for forecasting highway demand. The goal of the contract research program has been to provide practi- cal results that can be readily applied to problems that are of national sig- nificance or common to many highway agencies. Historically, few projects FHWA's research activitics now include grants and cooperativc agreements as well as contracts.

Highway Research and Technology Programs 39 have been aimed at developing breakthrough technologies with long-term payoffs: the program has sought primarily to produce incremental improvements in highway performance. Occasionally projects have addressed new technologies; for instance, during the 1970s, FHWA funded several exploratory studies to identify environmentally safe high- way deicing materials. Although the primary emphasis of the program continues to be on short-term and applied research, recently HRD received substantially increased funding for IVHS research, some of which can be characterized as speculative or high risk in nature, since benefits are not certain or anticipated anytime soon. For several years FHWA has attempted to establish an Office of Advanced Research (within HRD) to study emerging technologies and to identify their application to highways, but funding has not been approved. More than 25 percent of the 1993 FHWA R&D budget is devoted to programs and individual projects legislatively earmarked for specific top- ics and activities. Research on timber bridge design and the fundamental properties of asphalt are examples of such activities. Earmarked research has increased the size of FHWA's contract research program, but it also affects how the program is managed and coordinated, limiting the role of FHWA in the process. For some earmarked activities, such as studies of the properties of asphalt and seismic research programs, Congress has also specified the organizations that are to conduct the research. In such cases, FHWA research staff work with the contractor to develop the research pro- gram, though its discretion in defining the program is greatly reduced. Staff Research, LTPP, NHI, and Other Programs Up to 10 percent of FHWA's research staff time is spent conducting research. FHWA's Turner- Fairbank Highway Research Center provides staff with laboratories and outdoor test facilities. Virtually all of the staff work, which currently totals $2.0 million to $2.5 million a year, consists of special investigations of operational problems that require quick action, preliminary investigations of problems that are evolving or poorly defined, or consolidation of the results of several contractors. The in-house research projects also enhance staff development by improving technical competence and increasing awareness of current research issues and technologies. Other activities administered by HRD include the National Highway Institute (NHI) and the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) pro- gram. NHI provides technical training programs in highway construction, highway engineering, and environmental impact as part of the agency's technology transfer process. Its short training courses, which are offered

J Office of Policy Oeveiopraent L — — -- I r office of I Highway I information I Management L _...... I Office of Engineering & Highway I Operations R&D L_.. r —-- -1 Office of I Safety & Traffic I I Operations R&D L_....J Office of Environment & Planning L..... Office of Right.of-Way L.......J Adndnisator IVHS Joint Program Office 011k. of Chief Counsel Office of Public Affairs Office of Program Review 011k. of Civil Righto Ex.cutiv. Director I 1 ""7I1I111i ____ Associate Adntinlst,ator I Mntinisfrator Associate I I for Res.arch & I I Associate Adntinlsator I for ProgramDevelopment forPoiicy I eveiopment I Office of Engineering i Associate Mntinietrator Associate ntiaislratov M I I Associate Mmlnlstrotor for Safety and System for Mniinisation for Motor Carriers Applications I i I I Officeof Office of I Office Motor CarrIer Highway Safety Personnel & Inlbrnwtlon Training L Management Analysis ----I r - 1 Office of Traffic Office of Management and Fiscal Motor Carrier I Intelligent SeMces Standards Vehicle-Highway L L J Office of Management Systenn I I I L_J Office at Program I I Management I Support -

Key r -- Offices with R&D Activities L------ i r— ' OMceol i—' R&D Operations I 1 andSupport L___J OffIceof _______ Advanc.d Research L — - - ri Office of conisacts & Motor Canter Procurements Safety Field Operations Federal.Id I FederalLands Regional Offices i HlghwayOfllce Division Offices Federal Lands Highway Divisions Regional Offices of Motor Canter Safety FIGURE 3-1 FHWA organizational structure showing offices of R&D and technology transfer activities.

42 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS to state and local highway personnel as well as to individuals in the pri- vate sector, focus on new and rapidly changing technologies. NHI's efforts extend to the international arena through the Pan American Institute of Highways and the International Program for Foreign Visitors and to grad- uate training for engineering students through the Dwight D. Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Program. The fellowship program, which was funded at $3 million in 1993, seeks to attract young people to careers in highway and transportation engineering through grants to conduct research at universities and FHWA. LTPP is a 20-year experiment, initiated in 1987 by the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), to monitor and collect performance data on a carefully selected sample of in-service pavements across the coun- try; operational responsibility for LTPP was transferred to FHWA on July 1, 1992. LTPP research involves nearly 3,000 carefully selected or specially constructed (or both) in-service pavement test sections throughout North America. The data collection program will continue until 2007 and is expected to provide a foundation for basic and applied pavement research by FHWA, states, and highway researchers. Office of Safety and System Applications Technology transfer is primarily the responsibility of the Office of Safety and System Applications (HST). Within this unit, the Office of Technology Applications identifies, evaluates, and promotes new technologies devel- oped by FHWA, states, universities, and the private sector both in the United States and abroad. The principal audience is state and local high- way personnel, university faculties, and FHWA field and program officers. The office uses a wide range of marketing techniques and strategies, includ- ing brochures, user manuals, specification guides, videotapes, slide pre- sentations, and conferences and workshops for potential users. Technology transfer also includes field test and pilot presentations and demonstration projects of various technologies arranged through FHWA regional offices in cooperation with state and local highway agencies. The Office of Technology Applications' demonstration projects allow new products and technologies to be incorporated into state highway pro- jects on a trial basis. These projects usually involve technologies that are proven technically but that require an operating demonstration to be mar- keted successfully. FHWA provides technical and financial assistance to host state highway agencies, organizes expositions at the demonstration sites, and prepares performance evaluations of products for dissemination to

Highway Research and Technology Programs 43 prospective technology users. Section 6005 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) established the Applied Research and Technology Program and a supplemental source of funding for accelerated testing, evaluation, and implementation of technologies "designed to improve the durability, efficiency, environmental impact, pro- ductivity, and safety of highway, transit, and mtermodal transportation sys- tems." Funds from the program are being used to help the Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF) establish a center to test and evaluate innovative highway technologies (the Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center, or HITEC, discussed later in this chapter). The Office of Technology Applications also administers FHWA's Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), which provides technical assistance funds to the states to assist them and local governments through 55 Technology Transfer Centers. Most of the centers are housed at state urn- versities and technical colleges and geared specifically toward disseminat- ing research results and new technologies to municipalities under 2 million population and rural highway agencies. The location of the centers at uni- versities also provides educational and training opportunities to students interested in highway-related careers and to highway professionals at the state and local levels. In 1993 states could receive up to $110,000 in LTAP funds on a 1:1 matching basis and additional funds on an 80:20 match- ing basis. Other FHWA Research Several other FHWA offices conduct research, though not as their primary mission. Most of the research is in support of regulatory and programmatic activities and, therefore, is primarily problem-oriented and short term in nature. The Office of Motor Carriers, which is responsible for developing and enforcing federal motor carrier safety regulations, received about $8.7 mil- lion in 1993 to improve safety through research on a variety of commer- cial driver, vehicle, regulatory, enforcement, and other related activities. (About $4.5 million of this research is conducted by the American Trucking Associations.) Priority research topics include driver proficiency (alertness, medical qualifications, alcohol and substance abuse, and train- ing and testing), vehicle safety and performance (vehicle technologies, fuel safety, cargo securement, longer vehicle requirements, and maintenance needs), and motor carrier safety information and analysis (data collection, processing, and analysis, accident analysis, and program management).

44 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRErJONs FHWA's Office of Policy has several responsibilities, including identifi- cation and analysis of emerging policy issues, analysis to support policy and legislative development, highway information management, and interna- tional programs. To support these activities the office's research activities are directed at the following: truck size and weight and freight demand analysis; highway cost allocation; highway investment, performance, and productivity analysis; highway network development and evaluation; effects of environmental and energy initiatives on federal-aid highway policies and financing issues; and improvements in transportation data acquisition and management. Its research budget for 1993 was approximately $8 million. The Office of Environment and Planning, under the Associate Administrator for Program Development, conducts research in support of both short- and long-term planning. In 1993 the office sponsored about $4.8 million of research ranging from conferences on land use and devel- opment influences on future highway requirements to projects aimed at improving compliance with the federal Clean Air Act and its amendments, such as development of models and other tools to determine the impact of new highway construction on emission levels. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Other DOT Agencies In addition to FHWA, several other agencies and offices within DOT fund and conduct vehicle- and highway-related research. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) supports—at an annual cost of approximately $15.2 million—three important data bases: the Fatal Accident Reporting System, the National Accident Sampling System, and the State Data System, which permit increased understanding of accidents in relation to vehicle occupants, nonoccupants, roadway, and vehicle char- acteristics. NHTSA spends about $20 million each year on motor vehicle safety research. These programs involve both crashworthiness and crash avoidance research that supports rule making and biomechanics research objectives. In cooperation with FHWA it also funds research in pedestrian safety. NHTSA's crash avoidance research focuses on human factors and the interaction of the driver, vehicle, and highway. The agency recently started funding IVHS-related research, including assessing the potential safety effects of various IVHS technologies. The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) of DOT periodically sponsors special studies on highway transportation, especially in hazardous materials truck transportation in support of its Office of

Highway Research and Technology Programs 45 Hazardous Materials Safety. RSPA administers DOT's Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, which conducts research, analysis, and technology applications projects on behalf of FHWA and other DOT agen- cies. RSPA also oversees the University Transportation Centers Program and the University Transportation Research Institutes, which provide sup- port to highway and other surface transportation research and technology transfer by university faculty and students (these programs are discussed later in the chapter). Other DOT agencies that occasionally fund research related to high- ways include the Federal Aviation Administration, which sponsors pave- ment research for runways that is applicable to highways; the Federal Transit Administration, which funds research for transit operations and equipment; and the Office of the Secretary, which conducts policy-related research on major issues affecting highway transportation. The Office of Intermodalism, recently established in the Office of the Secretary, will most likely take a lead role in sponsoring and coordinating department research on the links between highway transportation and other modes. ISTEA also created a Bureau of Transportation Statistics in DOT; the bureau will gather critical data for studies in support of strategic planning and national policy making, frequently dealing with issues and topics affecting highways. Other Federal Agencies Outside DOT, other federal agencies that sometimes undertake research related to highway issues are the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, especially in the areas of environment, energy conservation, and hazardous materials transportation. Both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the USDA Forest Service undertake research applicable to highways, though the work tends to focus on specific prob- lems encountered in their own construction and maintenance programs. The Forest Service, which maintains 200,000 miles of federal roads, has a small R&D program. The Corps of Engineers operates an extensive $350 million research program that is based on its combined military and civil works missions; the civil works R&D budget for FY 1993 was about $50 million. As the engineering staff for the U.S. Army and the construction agent for other services on occasion, the Corps is responsible for a large portion of the Department of Defense's annual pavement construction and maintenance budget of nearly $600 million. In support of the Corps of Engineers' R&D program, three of its six main research laboratories—the Waterways

46 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Experiment Station, the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, and the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory—are involved in R&D activities related to highway engineering. The Corps has also developed a research partnering program, the Construction Prod- uctivity Advancement Research (CPAR) program, that involves cost-sharing partnerships between the Corps and the U.S. construction industry and other entities interested in construction productivity and competitiveness. Since 1989 the contribution of the Corps under CPAR has been $17.7 mil- lion; that of industry has been $29.4 million. The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Science Foundation contribute to highway research, the former by developing uniform and reliable testing methods and assisting in technology transfer and the latter by sponsoring basic research in highway-related areas such as structural engineering, materials science, and geotechnical science.2 State Research and Cooperative Programs The partnership between states and the federal government that exists in the federal-aid highway construction program carries over into R&D activ- ities. Many state-administered highway research programs involve federal funding, oversight, and coordination. State Planning and Research Program The State Planning and Research (SP&R) program is supported coopera- tively by individual states and the federal government. In 1992 Congress took two steps that increased R&D funds available to the states: it increased the percentage of highway construction funds to be spent by the states on planning and research to 2 percent of the total apportionment, and it required that at least 25 percent of this be used for research, devel- opment, and technology transfer. As a result, about $69 million in SP&R funds were available for research, as opposed to about $25 million in the previous year. This amount rose to nearly $79 million in 1993. Each state initiates and selects its own SP&R studies, although FHWA seeks to approve and monitor studies to minimize duplication. The SP&R program enables the states to undertake a range of activi- ties, including contract research, in-house research, technology transfer, 2 In October 1994 the Advanced Technology Program of NIST is slated to begin receiving $160 million over 5 years for automobile and highway research.

Highway Research and Technology Programs 47 technical assistance to regional and local transportation agencies, materi- als and equipment testing, and staff technical development and training. SP&R research studies tend be short in duration (1 to 2 years) and empha- size practical solutions that can be applied quickly to existing programs and problems. Often this research is aimed at correcting unique local problems related to a state's own conditions, including traffic levels and local con- struction materials; however, results of SP&R studies are often of interest to other states, especially those in the same region. SP&R studies are undertaken by state R&D staff or performed under contract by outside research organizations, university researchers, and consultants. Much of the testing, technical assistance, and technology transfer activity performed by state R&D personnel involves direct, one-on-one interaction with staff of other organizations with specific questions or issues to be solved. Examples of recently completed SP&R research include accelerated strength testing of concrete (Florida), an evaluation of methods of pre- venting single-vehicle roadside accidents (Texas), and an assessment of lighting systems for controlling traffic in work zones (Ohio). Other State Research Several states, such as California, Kentucky, Texas, and Virginia have assem- bled sizable research staffs and testing facilities that are used to support and conduct not only SP&R work but also other highway research that is fully funded by the state. Collectively, state-funded studies accounted for more than $16 million of highway research in 1992.1 Among the advantages of such state-funded research are that federal oversight requirements are elim- inated and projects can be initiated and changed quickly as new problems arise and existing ones become more or less important. Even more so than SP&R studies, state-funded projects are directed to solving unique local problems and often have very limited application nationally or regionally. National Cooperative Highway Research Program An important advantage of state research is that unique or pressing local problems can be tackled quickly and efficiently. This approach, however, is not well suited for stimulating research on large national or regional prob- lems affecting many states. For this reason, the states have created ways of Although the $16 million spent by the states is similar in scale to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, it is spent on many projects aimed at meeting specffic local needs in the states; moreover, the expenditures are not part of a continuing program of research.

48 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONs pooling of resources in order to address common problems. The largest pooled-fund research program is the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB).4 NCHRP emerged soon after construction began on the Interstate system, when many states began to experience similar problems related to highway design and construction. Since 1989 NCHRP funding has hovered near $8 million annually; ISTEA legislated a substan- tial annual increase that was not realized in actual expenditures until 1994 (see Chapter 5 for details). NCHRP projects, in most cases, are problem-oriented and designed to produce results for immediate application—for example, by providing incremental advances in practice or recommending improvements to spec- ifications and guidelines from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (e.g., design standards). Projects are programmed by AASHTO's Standing Committee on Research (SCOR)—with input from state highway agencies, other AASHTO com- mittees, and FHWA—and approved by the AASHTO board of directors. Studies address problems in a wide range of subject matter, from highway design and construction to transportation planning and administration (see Table 3-1). Some projects help states comply with new federal regulations and policies—for instance, by developing guidelines for constructing high- ways near hazardous waste sites. In most cases the studies are intended to provide products or procedures that can be readily applied to current and emerging problems. NCHRP and FHWA jointly fund the NCHRP-IDEA (Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis) program, which attempts to find innov- ative concepts and products for the nation's highway system. Originating as the SHRP-IDEA program within SHRP, it was transferred to TRB man- agement so that it could continue after SHRP completed its activities. The program provides grants to researchers who have proposals for developing new and innovative solutions to highway problems. NCHRP project results are disseminated to states in a special TRB report series. Implementation is facilitated by the program's close ties to state highway agencies, which provide volunteers for the project review panels, and to AASHTO, which often develops highway design practices and specifications based on the research findings. NCHRP project panels The states also cooperate through other pooled-fund projects on a less formal basis, address- ing problems of local or regional interest. FHWA estimates that FY 1993 expenditures on such projects, not including NCHRP, were about $2 million.

Highway Research and Technology Programs 49 TABLE 3-1 NCHRP Project Areas RESEARCH FIELD AREA A Administration 2 Economics 11 Law 19 Finance B Transportation Planning 8 Forecasting 25 Impact Analysis C Design 1 Pavements 12 Bridges 15 General Design 16 Roadside Development 22 Vehicle Barrier Systems D Materials and Construction 4 General Materials 9 Bituminous Materials 10 Specifications, Procedures, and Practices 18 Concrete Materials E Soils and Geology 21 Soils Testing and Instrumentation 23 Soils Properties 24 Soil Mechanics and Foundations F Maintenance 6 Snow and Ice Control 13 Equipment 14 Maintenance of Way and Structures G Traffic 3 Traffic Operations and Control 5 Illumination and Visibility 7 Traffic Planning 17 Traffic Safety Special Projects - [Encompasses all projects not readily identified with other problem areas.] also contribute to implementation; these panels consist of specialists from state and other highway agencies who monitor and guide the research. Other Cooperative Programs Besides NCHRP, several other', smaller cooperative research programs have been developed by states, universities, and other research organizations in recent years. For example, upon the request of five New England states, AASHTO assisted in the establishment of the New England Transportation Consortium (NETC) in 1986. NETC pools financial, professional, and aca- demic research resources to deal more effectively with highway problems that are common to the region. The program originally included five state trans- portation agencies, their five corresponding state universities, FHWA,

50 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS AASHTO, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). MIT man- aged the program with AASHTO from 1986 to 1993. The program has evolved into a six-state, New England—wide program managed by the FHWA Region 1 office. Activities sponsored by NETC include studies related to truck travel (e.g., common permit procedures and common safety data col- lection), environmental factors in highway design (e.g., tire chips as back- fill, wetlands design factQrs, and environmental public policy issues) and bridge design and maintenance (e.g., nondestructive testing of bridge decks and crash-tested bridge rail design). Another example of a collaborative research program is the Alliance for Transportation Research in New Mexico, which combines the resources of the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department with those of New Mexico's state universities and the Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories. The alliance conducts highway research for the state of New Mexico and bids on FHWA and other public- and private-sector highway R&D projects. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials As the national association representing state highway and transportation officials, AASHTO has an important role—both formally and informally— in highway research, serving as a coordinator, organizer, and forum for encouraging, reviewing, and priority ranking research activities. As men- tioned before, AASHTO plays a key role in developing the annual NCHRP research plan and is involved in other state cooperative research efforts. The AASHTO SCOR, which has a regionally balanced membership from state highway agencies, develops an annual program of NCHRP projects for AASHTO approval. In addition, SCOR assists other AASHTO com- mittees in identifying research needs, advocates funding for highway research, and helps coordinate state involvement in national research activ- ities, such as SHRP. Serving as an advisor to SCOR is AASHTO's Research Advisory Committee (RAC), which is composed of managers of the R&D programs of state highway agencies. RAC provides an opportunity for face- to-face meetings between R&D managers and serves as an informal mech- anism for coordinating state research. AASHTO manages a joint development program aimed at producing and supporting software products that meet the unique needs of state transportation departments. Collectively called AASHTOWare, these pro- grams apply to survey data collection and management, bridge design,

Highway Research and Technology Programs 51 drafting and rating, roadway design and rehabilitation, construction pro- ject estimating, and bid letting and contract administration. Since 1987 states have spent about $25.5 million for development and licensing of the products (states can use SP&R funds for some these expenditures). AASHTO also directs the AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory, which is managed by NIST. Its primary responsibility is to promote adher- ence to standards in the testing of construction materials by public- or pri- vate-sector laboratories serving the construction field, including the central laboratories operated by state departments of transportation. Local and Independent Agencies Local governments and independent agencies—such as cities, counties, toll authorities, and murncipal planning organizations—have very limited resources for conducting research, but sometimes they conduct or sponsor a project to address immediate local problems. The major associations rep- resenting local governments and their highway agencies, such as the National Association of Counties, National Association of Regional Councils, and American Public Works Association, perform some research, develop prob- lem statements, and sponsor journals, technical committees, and special con- ferences to circulate research results among member organizations. In most cases, technology transfer rather than research activity is their primary focus. Counties and cities sometimes contribute to research by providing data and test sites for experimental and demonstration projects. Because there are thousands of local highway agencies in the United States and only a few con- duct or sponsor projects, it is difficult to estimate R&T spending at this level. Private-Sector Research Private-sector R&D consists primarily of R&D conducted or sponsored by the major national associations of private industry and engineering pro- fessions concerned with highway transportation and by the companies that design and construct highways and supply materials and equipment for construction and maintenance. Associations such as the American Trucking Associations, the Portland Cement Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers establish committees to review and make suggestions about potential research top- ics in specific technical areas, sponsor research in their special fields of inter- est, and play an important role in distributing research findings by sponsoring journals, conferences, and demonstration projects.

52 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIoNs Some associations have established their own research laboratories or pro- vide funding for specialized research programs and centers, such as the Asphalt Institute, the Western Highway Institute (fimded by the trucking industry), the Construction Technology Laboratories (Portland Cement Association), the American lion and Steel Institute, CERF (American Society of Civil Engineers), the National Cooperative Asphalt Technology Program (National Center for Asphalt Technology), and the American Concrete Institute.5 Table 3-2 provides information on highway-related R&D expen- ditures by some associations and institutes grouped by engineering category.6 In addition, companies that develop highway-related equipment, prod- ucts, and services (which often have nonhighway markets as well) support highway R&D. Private companies that sponsor or conduct research include Caterpillar, Inc. (construction equipment); Vulcan Materials (construction materials); Cargill, Inc. (deicing chemicals); Bechtel Group, Inc. (con- struction technologies); and USX Corporation (structural steel). Examples of highway-related products resulting from private R&D efforts include the reflective sign and pavement marking materials developed by 3M Company, improved concrete barrier systems developed by General Motors Corporation at its proving grounds, and more durable highway drainage systems developed by Chevron Chemical Company. It is difficult to acquire accurate data on private-sector R&D activities because of the proprietary nature of company R&D and the hundreds of individual companies and thousands of products involved.7 In addition, attempts to gather comprehensive data on R&D spending show that some firms conducting research do not keep track of their R&D spending; some do not recognize their research activities as such; and, finally, project- related activities that involve research are often considered a part of doing business (CERF 1993). The private sector also plays an important role in conducting much of the highway research sponsored by public agencies and other organiza- tions. Hundreds of large and small businesses (ranging from national engi- Research conducted by associations of local governments (e.g., National Association of Counties, National Association of Regional Councils, and National League of Cities) is lim- ited, and the portion aimed at highway engineering problems is small, generally focusing on synthesizing work conducted for FHWA or the states. 6 The data shown were provided by the associations and institutes and were aggregated by the committee. According to the Business Week Annual R&D Scoreboard, June 28, 1993, 11 companies that manufacture construction equipment spent an average of 3.1 percent of FY 1992 rev- enues on R&D. Using Bureau of the Census data indicating that 7 percent of all U.S. heavy construction is highway construction yields an estimated 1992 R&D expenditure of $65 mil- lion for highway construction equipment.

TABLE 3-2 Estimates of Highway-Related R&D Expenditures by Selected Industry Associations for Several Major Highway Engineering Categories FUNDING CATEGORY" SELECTED ASSOCIATIONSb ($ MILUONS)' Concrete and concrete Portland Cement Association 8.5 (only structures American Concrete Pavement part is Association highway- Reinforced Concrete Research related) Council American Concrete Institute Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute American Concrete Pipe Institute National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute American Precast Concrete Pipe Association National Precast Concrete Association Asphalt; asphalt paving; Asphalt Institute 2.0 asphalt modifiers National Asphalt Pavement Association (primarily National Center for Asphalt Technology highway- Asphalt Rubber Producers Group related) Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association Rubber Pavements Association Aggregates National Aggregates Association 0.6 (part is National Stone Association highway- Center for Aggregates Research related) Steel and steel (steel companies) 2.4 (part is structures' American Iron and Steel Institute highway- American Institute of Steel Construction related) American Welding Society Construction equipment (equipment manufcturers) 65 (see Construction Industry Manufacturers text) Association Highway and traffic safety AAA Foundation for Highway Safety 8 ATA Foundation Insurance Institute for Highway Safety "Additional categories such as composite materials, scalants, and contractors could be included; AASHTO also finds some research, as noted in the text. bThis is a list of the primary associations funding highway-related R&T; many professional soci- eties—such as the American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society of Municipal Engineers, and Institute of Transportation Engineers—arc actively involved in technology trans- fer and professional training activities; some are involved with the development ofstandards and specifications. 'Estimates based on discussions with association representatives. dBased on data from the Business Week Annual R&D Scoreboard (July 1993) and estimates by steel company representatives.

54 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS neering firms and nonprofit research organizations to small consulting firms) university faculty, and individuals conduct much of the contract work sponsored by FHWA, states, and private industry. Public/Private Collaboration Two relatively new activities, ITS America8 and CERF, are examples of sig- nificant public- and private-sector collaboration to sponsor, coordinate, and distribute highway research and technology. ITS America, established in 1990, is a nonprofit membership organization with participation from pri- vate companies, associations, universities, and federal, state, and local gov- ernments. It advises DOT on the direction of its IVHS R&T programs and encourages IVHS research by government, businesses, and academia. One of its primary purposes is to facilitate IVHS technology transfer, for instance, by providing links between government and industry through meetings and publications and by identifying and promoting common system architecture. CERF was established in 1989 by the American Society of Civil Engineers as a means of promoting civil engineering research. CERF recently received funding from FHWA to establish HITEC to facilitate the transfer of new highway technologies to the field. The aim of HITEC is to evaluate products for which there are no acceptable test procedures. HITEC will help private companies or public agencies overcome institutional barriers to the implementation of new highway technologies. It will establish evaluation panels from both the pri- vate and public sectors to recommend testing and evaluation procedures for newly developed products that are ready for use but, because of their innovative characteristics, cannot be easily evaluated against an existing standard or specification. Representatives from the highway industry and federal, state, and local agencies as well as TRB and other organizations were involved in the initial development of HITEC; the private sector is expected to provide the primary source of funding in the future. HITEC initiated its first evaluations in mid-1994. Universities Much of the highway research funded by FHWA, states, and the private sector is conducted at universities, especially when specialized testing facil- ities and a variety of technical expertise are required. State academic insti- 8 In Octobcr 1994, IVHS Amcrica changed its name to ITS Amcrica.

Highway Research and Technology Programs 55 tutions, in particular, have strong ties with the research offices of state high- way departments. In 1987 Congress established the University Transportation Centers Program as a means of promoting transportation research and technolog- ical innovation and educating young people in the highway and trans- portation fields. The program, which is administered by RSPA with assistance from the modal administrations, provides each center with matchable grants to conduct basic as well as applied research in trans- portation areas. The original 10 centers, which are consortia of 2 to 12 universities in each of the 10 federal regions, were designated by DOT on a competitive basis, whereby each established a general theme for research, such as safety, finance, or rural transportation (UTCP 1993). ISTEA cre- ated three new "national" centers, designating (on a noncompetitive basis) specific universities as centers and prescribing to each a research theme and a level of funding. ISTEA also created five University Transportation Research Institutes, which will focus on specified transportation discipline areas such as IVHS, infrastructure, and policy studies. RSPA will make grants to the universi- ties designated in the legislation to conduct and coordinate research in these areas (RSPA 1992). Strategic Highway Research Program From 1987 to its completion in 1993, SHRP was a major participant in highway research. Recommended by a special TRB study committee in 1984, SHRP was funded by the federal government and managed by an independent unit of the National Research Council. The program's research focuses on four specific areas: asphalt, concrete structures, high- way operations, and long-term pavement performance. SHRP was estab- lished to conduct intensive research in a few areas for which prior funding was judged inadequate and thought to have the potential for dramatic improvements in highway performance and cost. As a result it did not duplicate or replace existing highway research activities. Research areas were selected on the basis of whether they had the potential for big pay- offs, addressed problems that had previously been neglected, and could produce results that had immediate application. By concentrating on a few key areas aimed at meeting these criteria, SHRP was to provide innova- tive products and technical recommendations that would solve pressing problems that, for various organizational and institutional reasons, might otherwise take many more years to tackle.

56 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONs More than 100 products developed from SHRP projects are being dis- seminated for use and additional development by FHWA, states, and the private sector. Examples include an improved asphalt pavement mix design system known as Superpave,9 improved snowplow designs and equipment, better concrete materials and construction processes for controlling cor- rosion of reinforcing steel, and advanced methods for determining bridge condition. This implementation program is administered by FHWA's Office of Research and Development and Office of Safety and System Applications. Finally, the LTPP project initiated by SHRP is now being managed by FHWA with technical and administrative assistance from TRB. Transportation Research Board TRB was organized in 1920, as the Highway Research Board (HRB), by the National Research Council to serve as a national clearinghouse to facil- itate the sharing of technical information on highway design and con- struction by the then growing number of autonomous research units, in order to avoid duplication of efforts and to build on the work of others. During the 1970s, HRB became TRB and broadened its scope to consider nonhighway modes and the interaction of transportation systems with one another and with the physical, economic, and social environments that they are designed to serve. TRB continues to be important to highway R&D activities. In FY 1993 TRB's operating budget was about $23.5 million, with about 57 percent of the funding coming from the states, 25 percent from federal agencies, and 23 percent from other sources. TRB's activities use more than 300 committees, task forces, and panels that involve more than 3,900 volunteer members, including many of the nation's top transportation administrators, engineers, educators, social sci- entists, and lawyers. TRB provides opportunities for researchers and prac- titioners to exchange information, identify research needs and priorities, stimulate needed research, and encourage the adoption of research results. To facilitate these activities, TRB publishes research papers, arranges con- ferences and workshops, maintains an information service for ongoing and completed transportation studies (Transportation Research Information Services, or TRIS), and holds an annual meeting at which committees con- vene and research results are presented and exchanged. Superpavc is a comprehensive method of designing asphalt paving mixes tailored to the unique performance requirements dictated by the traffic, climate, and structural character- istics of a particular Site.

Hghway Research and Technology Programs 57 TRB administers two major research programs sponsored by other orga- nizations: NCHRP and the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). Staff are responsible for administrative and technical surveillance of the research contracts. Advisory panels composed of technical special- ists and experienced practitioners in the problem areas prepare the pro- ject work statements, review proposals, recommend contract awards, and provide counsel to the NCHRP and TCRP staff responsible for manag- ing work under the research contracts. TRB also conducts special studies that encompass technical and policy issues related to highway and other transportation matters; such studies are performed under contract at the request of Congress, DOT, AASHTO, and other government and nonprofit organizations and according to the procedures of the National Research Council. Foreign and International Research Many of the developed nations of the world sponsor highway research pro- grams, which often result in new highway technologies being imported into the United States.'° Examples of foreign research activities include the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in the United Kingdom, the Center for Road Research in Belgium, the Australian Road Research Board, and the Road and Traffic Research Institute in Sweden. Through its Road Transport Research Program, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) organizes technical panels to prepare state-of-the-art reports on research topics; other inter- national organizations, such as the Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC), the International Road Federation (IRF), and the European Conference of Ministers of Transport, foster the interna- tional exchange of research ideas and results through committee meetings, conferences, and publications. Some countries enter formal arrangements with each other and private industry to sponsor and conduct highway-related research. For example, major cooperative research programs—involving automotive and elec- '° According to the staff of the Road Research Program of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris, detailed information about expenditures by individual countries on highway R&T is not readily available or reliable. OECD staff have been unsuccessful thus far in compiling country-by-country data on highway R&T cxpen- ditures by category; differences in definitions, accounting methods, and organizational sys- tems are the most serious hurdles. Further, they have been unable to verify published data brought to their attention. Additional information about U.S. participation in international activities is given in Chapter 6.

58 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS tronics companies, research institutions, and national transportation agen- cies—are now under way in Western Europe and Japan to investigate and develop P/MS using advanced communications, navigation, and computer technologies. FHWA R&T Coordinating Activities To better coordinate and monitor federally funded highway research activ- ities, HRD has established the Nationally Coordinated Program of Highway Research, Development, and Technology (NCP) to serve as a management framework. NCP is organized into category and program areas, such as highway safety, pavements, policy, and planning. In each pro- gram area, FHWA research staff are responsible for coordinating the FHWA contract and staff research programs with federally funded SP&R, NCHRP, and SHRP activities in order to minimize duplication and iden- tify areas in which there are research gaps. At any one time, NCP moni- tors more than 1,500 projects. Besides monitoring highway R&T activities in the United States, FHWA participates in international activities aimed at coordinating and dissemi- nating research. ISTEA specifically emphasized the need to keep abreast of international research activities involving highways and other trans- portation modes. FHWA is active in IRF, PIARC, OECD, and other inter- national organizations that sponsor and coordinate highway research. REVIEW OF SELECTED HIGHWAY R&T PROGRAMS Tables 3-3 through 3-6 provide brief summaries of the highway research programs that fund major portions of the overall highway R&D effort: the FHWA R&T program, NCHRP, the SP&R program, and privately funded R&D activities. The summaries use eight descriptors to characterize the programs: these descriptors and brief definitions follow. Agenda setting: who sets the R&D agenda and how. Typical scope: size and duration, basic or applied research, imple- mentation, technology transfer, and so on. Funding mechanism: source of funding, reliability of funding, ear- marks, and so on. Researchers: who does the actual research.

TABLE 3-3 Summary Information on Federal Highway Administration R&T Program DESCRIPTOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Agenda setting FHWA prepares an annual 5-year program plan that involves FHWA staff from HRD, HST, other program offices, and FHWA regional offices; process begins in July and by the following June the plan and budget go to the Secretary's office; appropriations hearings take place in Februrary or March of the following year; contracts are let beginning in October. Typical scope Generally applied research, development, and testing of a problem of widespread (national) interest; mostly well-defined problems; often involves research elements within a coordinated program; funding for most projects is about $200,000 to $500,000 over 2 to 4 years; beginning to fund more projects greater than $1 million. Funding mechanism Funds are appropriated by Congress and include both general fund and trust fund moneys; funding is through procurement contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, interagency agreements, and funds transfer to state highway agencies. Researchers Include private firms, research institutes, universities, and individuals; some FHWA research is performed by in-house research staff; all FHWA research is managed and evaluated by in-house technical staff. Products Include technical reports, draft specifications, problem- solving approaches, prototype technologies, computer models, draft specifications, and operable equipment and devices. Product users State and local highway and transportation agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, contractors and consultants, and transportation service providers. Utilization strategy Includes videotapes, slide presentations, user manuals, guide specifications, handbooks, brochures, pilot training courses, and field evaluation reports; uses more cooperative agreements and cost sharing with private sector to encourage and speed commercialization. Expected time to Six months to a year for a project idea to get implementation programmed; contracting procedures usually take at least 1 year; research takes 1 to 3 years; early implementation takes about 1 year.

TABLE 3-4 Summary Information on State Planning and Research Program DESCRIPTOR STATE PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM Agenda setting Projects are nominated from within each state and selected by the state highway agencies; some states organize technical working groups of potential users within the state to prepare research problem statements and to monitor progress; annual SP&R work plan is prepared for FHWA approval; there is considerable flexibility to change work plan items and to change funding allocations. Typical scope Applied research, product development, or testing for local application; technical assistance; short-term problem solving; and troubleshooting. Funding mechanism Program uses federal funds apportioned on the basis of federal-aid construction funds and a 20 percent state match; individual projects are funded through procurement contracts and grants. Researchers Mostly from universities, consulting firms, and research institutes; some states have an in-house staff of experienced researchers who conduct a portion of the research. Products Similar to FHWA R&D products but generally the scope of potential application is more local. Product users State and local highway and transportation agencies; metropolitan planning organizations; highway contractors, consultants, and construction firms; and equipment and materials suppliers. Utilization strategy Highway agencies generally publish study results; researchers often publish results in technical journals; some states have research review panels that examine work under way and provide guidance to the researchers to improve the utility of the results; panel members are often the first users of the research products, sometimes even before the final results are published. Expected time to Projects can be programmed within 6 months; research implementation usually takes from 6 months to 2 years; early implementation can take place within 3 months after completion.

Highway Research and Technology Programs 61 TABLE 3-5 Sunimary Information on National Cooperative Highway Research Program DESCRIPTOR NATIONAL COOPERATWE HIGHwM RESEARCH PROGRAM Agenda setting Projects are selected by the AASHTO SCOR from a list of problem statements submitted by state transportation agencies, AASHTO committees, and FHWA staff, projects are approved by the AASHTO Board of Directors. Typical scope Projects are problem-oriented and designed to produce results that have immediate application; wide range of subject matter, generally oriented to state highway agency needs; IDEA program provides grants to researchers with proposals for the development of innovative solutions to highway problems. Funding mechanism Voluntary commitment by the states of a portion of SP&R funds that are administered by TRB. Researchers Generally private firms, research institutes, universities, and individuals. Products Similar to FHWA research; research results are published in a special report series. Product users State and state and local highway and transportation agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and contractors and consultants. Utilization strategy Based on special TRB report series and the program's close ties to state highway agencies; project review panels are close to research activity and carry information back to states and to AASHTO and its committees. Expected time to Project idea can take 6 to 18 months to be approved by implementation SCOR and additional months to get under contract; projects last from 1 to 3 years; early implementation can begin shortly after project completion because project review committees are often made up of potential product users ready to put products into use. Products: typical types of products such as reports, computer mod- els, methodologies, equipment, and specifications. Product users: who is likely to use the product. Utilization strategy: what methods are employed to ensure use and how dissemination plans are accomplished. Expected time to implementation: the time that it takes for a product to become available for general use (a) from when the project statement is included in a program plan, and (b) from when the project is initiated.

62 HIGHwAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS TABLE 3-6 Sununary Information on Private-Sector R&D Activities DESCRIPTOR PRIVATELY FUNDED R&D ACTIVITIES Agenda setting Highly individualized within each organization; based on immediate needs; largely problem-solving or troubleshooting activity based on the need to deliver a product or service to the highway industry or on the need or desire to dominate a particular market segment. Typical scope Often problem-solving and troubleshooting activities; can also be either hardware or software development; generally quick response. Funding mechanism Private companies fund their own research; associations and consortia develop funding agreements based on subscriptions, assessments, or other formula-based means. Researchers Principally by in-house research staff, some research is performed under contract by research institutes, universities, and member organizations. Products Product or service that gives the user a competitive edge; product can be useful outside highway field. Product users Individual company or association/consortium members in products or services for highway industry. Utilization strategy Private companies and associations/consortia put results into use as soon as possible; initial application is generally limited to those who financed the project. Expected time to Projects can be under way within several months of implementation initial concept; implementation can be under way just as results are completed if the project is monitored closely; proprietary considerations can limit actual range of impact. SPENDING BY MAJOR HIGHWAY R&T PROGRAMS FHWA and states are the primary public sources of highway R&T fund- ing; hence, short- and long-term changes in their programs have the great- est effect on total highway R&T funding. During the mid-1980s, SHRP was initiated in large part because of a precipitous drop in state and FHWA research spending that had occurred during the 1970s. For instance, when measured in real dollars from 1973 to 1982, SP&R [then called the Highway Planning and Research (HP&R) program] spending declined by more than 50 percent, funding for FHWA contract and staff research

Hiqhway Research and Technology Programs 63 dropped by nearly half, and spending on technology transfer activities by FHWA also decreased. Tighter budgets and uncertainty on the part of fed- eral and state decision makers about the short-term payoff of R&T activ- ities contributed to this decline. During the past decade, legislative and public concerns about deterio- rating highway infrastructure and growing highway use have helped renew focus on highway R&T, leading to greater funding for existing programs and the establishment of many new research programs. The Surface Transportation Act of 1982 broadened the funding base for each state's federal-aid highway apportionment, which resulted in a proportional increase in the SP&R authorization. The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act of 1987 created SHRP and appro- priated $150 million for the program over 5 years. More recently ISTEA stressed the need for research in emerging technologies, such as IVHS, and for technology transfer. Although the budget for FHWA's R&D program averaged from about $21 million (in 1992 dollars) from 1982 to 1991, the budgets from 1987 to 1990 were smaller than this. In 1992 and 1993 the budgets for this pro- gram were $144.7 million and $168.5 million. At the same time, FHWA's highway expenditures went from $14.5 biffion (in constant 1992 dollars) in 1981 to $18.4 billion in 1992. The NCHRP research budget was about $6.5 million (in constant 1992 dollars) from 1981 to 1984; it increased about 50 percent in 1985 to about $10 million and stabilized at this amount until 1988, when it began to lose ground to inflation. In 1992 ISTEA substantially increased it, but the increase was not realized in actual expenditures until 1994. As mentioned previously, SP&R (then HP&R) funding fell during the 1980s. The actual significance of this drop is not known because the states were not required to spend any HP&R funds on research; some states spent the entire HP&R allocation on planning, and research was funded either from states' funds or not at all. As a fraction of total industry revenues, the highway industry continues to spend much less on research than most other industries do. As might be expected, research spending is greatest in the high-technology industries, such as electronics and scientific instruments, which require the development of innovative products on a frequent basis. These industries typically spend more than 5 percent of revenues on R&D activities. The highway industry has many characteristics in common with medium- and lower-technology industries, which are often mature industries that do not depend on break- through research to maintain and generate business. Yet even most of these

64 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIoNs industries devote a larger share of their revenues to research than does the highway industry. For instance, the paper, primary metals, and petroleum refining industries spend roughly two to three times more on research (as a fraction of sale revenue) than the highway sector spends. For 1982 it was estimated that total R&T activities accounted for about 0.17 percent of all highway-related expenditures (TRB 1984). In 1992 about 0.32 percent of all highway-related spending was devoted to R&T activities, reflecting increases in FHWA, SP&R, and NCHRP research expenditures. This is still lower than the 0.5 percent of total engineering construction dol- lars spent on civil engineering R&D in 1992 (CERF 1993) 11 One of the difficulties with cross-industry comparisons is that the high- way industry itself is the end user of products developed or improved by R&D in other industries, such as steel, chemicals, and electronics. Hence, the improved equipment, materials, and procedures developed from R&D in these industries are potentially significant contributors to highway R&D but are difficult to measure. REFERENCES CERF. 1993. A Nationwide Survey of Civil Engineering—Related R&D. Report 93-5006. December. RSPA. 1992. Announcement for Applications to be Submitted to the University Transportation Centers Program. U.S. Department of Transportation, January. TRB. 1984. Special Report 202: America's Highways: Accelerating the Search for Innovation. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. UTCP. 1993. UTCP Report: University Transportation Centers Program 1988-1993. U.S. Department of Transportation. ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials CERF Civil Engineering Research Foundation CPAR Construction Productivity Advancement Research DOT U.S. Department of Transportation FHWA Federal Highway Administration HITEC Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center HP&R Highway Planning and Research HRD Office of Research and Development The R&D expenditures are divided as follows: federal agencies, 62.9 percent; industry, 16.3 percent; academia, 12.2 percent; State agencies, 4.4 percent; and nonprofit organiza- tions, 4.2 percent.

Highway Research and Technology Programs 65 HST Office of Safety and System Applications IDEA Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis IRF International Road Federation ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITS intelligent transportation system 1VHS intelligent vehicle-highway system LTAP Local Technical Assistance Program LTPP Long-Term Pavement Performance MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NCP Nationally Coordinated Program of Highway Research, Development, and Technology NETC New England Transportation Consortium NHI National Highway Institute NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NIST National Institute for Standards and Technology OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PIARC Permanent International Association of Road Congresses R&D research and development R&T research and technology RAC Research Advisory Committee RSPA Research and Special Programs Administration SCOR Standing Committee on Research SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program SP&R State Planning and Research TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TRB Transportation Research Board TRIS Transportation Research Information Service UTCP University Transportation Centers Program

Classifying Highway Research This chapter reviews the alternative ways in which research and tech-nology (R&T) activities are typically classified and categorized and then presents a framework for grouping research activities that matches the interests of policy makers, agency officials, and others who exercise broad oversight responsibility. Current highway R&T activities and fimding are examined in the next chapter using this framework. ALTERNATWE APPROACHES TO CATEGORIZING RESEARCH A variety of approaches have been used or proposed to classiFy R&T activ- ities. They vary, at least in part, because their purposes, scopes, and intended audiences differ, but most of the approaches are organized around one or more of the following descriptors:' Goals and missions. Research can be linked directly to particular goals and missions: those at various levels (societal, national, local, system, agency, etc.) and of various types, including "hard" technical, engineering, or cost goals as well as "soft" social, management, or economic goals. Phase of innovation process. These phases include basic or flmdamen- tal research, applied research, technology transfer, and education. This list builds on a similar discussion in a report on innovation prepared by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 1989). 66

Classifying Highway Research 67 Scale of improvement sought. Research can aim for either incremental or breakthrough improvements in performance (or achievement of other goals). Degree of risk. Research with low risk is clearly desirable, but high risk is sometimes warranted, particularly if breakthrough improvements are sought. Timing. Similarly, research with short-term payoff potential is desir- able, but research designed for long-term payoff is sometimes necessary when basic research is required or breakthrough improvements are sought. Functions and system components. Research can be organized around specific functions (e.g., planning) or specific system subcomponents (e.g., structures). Large-scale initiatives. Research programs that are unusual because of their scale or focus are sometimes singled Out as separate categories. The recent report on civil engineering research and development (R&D) activities in the United States by the Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF) adopted a traditional approach based on types of research and technical activities [see box (CERF 1993)]. Recent Study of Civil Engineering R&D In its report on civil engineering R&D activities in the United States, CERF used the following categolies of research and technical activities; the percentages in brackets represent the category expenditures found in the survey (CERF 1993). BAsIc RESEARCH is aimed at gaining scientific knowledge without spe- cific application in mind [35.6 percent]. APPLIED RESEARCH seeks technical knowledge to meet specific needs in engineering fields [13.6 percent]. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES consist of the advancement of prototypes and. processes for the production and construction of useful materials, devices, systems, or methods [33.6 percent]. DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES test whether the technology or method works in practice [11.8 percent]. INNOVATION is limited to the implementation of innovative designs, methods, or materials to improve productivity (a kind of on-the-job experimentation) [2.6 percent].

68 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CUP.RENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECFIONS TABLE 4-1 R&T Categories Proposed by NAS/NAE/IOM Panel (NAS et al. 1988) CATEGORY DESCRIPTION OF R&T ACTIVIFY Agency mission Supports an agency's specffic mission. Technology base Provides knowledge base to support innovation; includes education. Technology applied to national objectives Addresses broad national objectives. Major imtiative Possesses special budgets focused on a specific problem or research area. There is considerable contrast between organizational schemes for research that aim to build a top-down case for a particular category of research and those that have been developed by operating agencies with administrative and management objectives in mind. To illustrate, consider a congressionally requested report by the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine (NAS/NAE/IOM) (NM et al. 1988), which examines federal science and technology budget priorities. It builds a case for more explicit treatment of research that cuts across agency boundaries by using an organizational scheme that treats agency mission as just one of four categories of federal research (Table 4-1). Similarly, the spe- cial Transportation Research Board (TRB) committee (TRB 1987) that reviewed public transit research several years ago was concerned that transit research had failed to address the day-to-day problems of transit operating agencies. To highlight this gap, its three-category scheme for classifying tran- sit research included a problem solving category consisting mostly of applied research supporting local transit agency missions.2 In both of these cases, goal-oriented approaches were used to distinguish between research in support of agency missions and research that tackles problems and goals that go beyond agency boundaries. Agency-originated schemes for organizing research activities, on the other hand, naturally emphasize activities that support the agency mission. And because they also support administrative, management, and budgetary processes, the classification schemes tend be detailed, mirror organizational 2 The other two categories identified by the transit research committee are federal mission support and technology development. The latter category includes research that seeks break- through technologies in transit equipment.

Classifying Highway Research 69 structure, and reflect function and discipline grouping. In recent years, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has used two classification schemes for highway R&T. One has been used in annual reporting for the Nationally Coordinated Program of Highway Research, Development, and Technology for a number ofyears (FHWA 1992a). This "management frame- work" consists of 10 categories and 57 programs (or subcategories) (see box, pp. 70-71). These categories and programs are primarily highway functions and sub- components and generally follow organizational lines within FHWA. The other FHWA classification scheme stems from its annual R&T pro- gram plan (FHWA 1992b). It organizes the R&T program into five major categories, 17 subcategories, and 19 sub-subcategories (see box, p. 72), and it identifies 38 high-priority areas. The top level of this organizational scheme mixes mission research categories such as safety with technology transfer (a phase of the innovation process) and intelligent vehicle-highway systems (WHS, a large-scale research initiative). The subcategory and sub-subcategory levels generally address functions and system components or follow organiza- tional units within FHWA. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) has another classification scheme geared to highway research topics (Table 3-1). This scheme has 25 individual categories; one of them, Area 20: Special Projects, is designed for projects that do not fit well in the other areas (NCHRP 1993). The two FHWA organizational schemes and the NCHRP scheme are obvious candidate frameworks for describing the national highway R&T program (FHWA's research plus other programs); of these, the FHWA scheme used for the R&T program would probably be best because it incorporates goals and missions (see box, p. 72). It would, however, have some shortcomings from the standpoint of presenting a top-down view in which the motivation behind the research is fairly transparent. For exam- ple, one must look at the subcategory level to see that FHWA's research program addresses policy issues, but this level includes 17 categories, too many for an overview. In addition, the scheme does not highlight the dis- unction between incremental and breakthrough research, which is funda- mental to the justification of research initiatives such as WHS. Consequently, a classification scheme that works well as an administrative and management tool for FHWA does not work as well for the purposes of the overview of the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee. Consequently, a new framework for grouping highway R&T activities was developed for this report.

70 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FHWA Research Categories and Programs Used for Nationally Coordinated Program (FHWA 1992a) CATEGORY A: HIGHWAY SAFETY Advanced Traffic Control Methods and Devices Improving Driver Visibility of Roadway Environment Highway Safety Information Management Special Highway Users Highway Safety Design Practices and Criteria Human Factors for Highway Safety Technology Transfer for Highway Safety CATEGORY B: TRAFFIC OPERATIONS/INTELLIGENT VEHICLE-HIGHWAY SYSTEMS Advanced Traffic Management Systems Advanced Traveler Information Systems Commercial Vehicle Operations Advanced Vehicle Control Systems Traffic Analysis and Operational Design Aids Institutional and Legal Issues Technology Transfer for Traffic Operations/Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems CATEGORY C: PAVEMENTS Evaluation of Rigid Pavements Evaluation of Flexible Pavements Field and Laboratory Test Methods Pavement Management Strategies Construction Control and Management Long-Term Pavement Performance Evaluation Technology Transfer for Pavements CATEGORY D: STRUCTURES 1. Bridge Design 2. Bridge Management 3. Hydraulics and Hydrology. 4. Corrosion Protection 5. Technology Transfer for Structural, Geotechnical, and Hydraulic Technology CATEGORY E: MATERIALS AND OPERATIONS Asphalt and Asphaltic Mixtures Cement and Concrete Geoteclmology Bridge Paints S. Highway Maintenance 6. Snow and Ice Control 7. Technology Transfer for Materials and Operations continued on next page

Classifying Highway Research 71 Box continued from previous page CATEGORY F: PoLicy Highway Financing Freight Transportation Highway and Economic Productivity Improving Transportation Data Acquisition and Management Strategic System Performance Analysis Technology Transfer for Policy CATEGORY G: MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION Motor Carrier Safety Program Efficiency, Enforcement, and Compliance Uniformity and Competitiveness CATEGORY J: PLANNING Ensuring the Efficiency of Future Urban Transportation Systems Highway Performance Systems Analysis Congestion Management Travel Impact of Transportation Systems Changes Intermodal Transportation Planning CATEGORY K: ENVIRONMENT Air Quality Highway Traffic Noise and Vibration Wetlands Environmental Processes Hazardous Waste Historic Preservation and Archeological Resources Water Quality Community Impacts and Public Involvement Technology Transfer for Environment CATEGORY L: RIGHT OF WAY 1. Corridor Preservation ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR GROUPING RESEARCH ACTIVITIES The primary objective of this report is to portray the current highway R&T program in a way that matches the interests of policy makers, agency offi- cials, and others who need to understand the program and exercise broad oversight responsibility.3 This requires that R&T activities be grouped in The committee dcvclopcd this framework for its own purposes and recognized the need for agencies to develop classification schemes to fit their own purposes; however, others might find it uscfiul to adapt.

72 HIGHwAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECrI0Ns FHWA Research Categories and Programs Used for 5-Year Program (FHWA 19921b) CATEGORY I: SAFETY A. Research and Development: Highway Safety Highway Safety Information Management Human Factors Research for Highway Safety Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Highway Safety Design Practices and Criteria Advanced Traffic Control Methods and Devices B. Motor Carrier Safety Research CATEGORY II: INTELLIGENT VEHICLE-HIGHWAY SYSTEMS Advanced Traffic Management Systems Advanced Traveler Information Systems Advanced Public Transportation Systems Commercial Vehicle Operations Advanced Vehicle Control Systems CATEGORY III: PRESERVATION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE A. Research and Development: Pavements and Structures Materials To Strengthen and Enhance Performance Construction, Repair, and Rehabilitation of the Highway Infrastructure System Management To Increase Service Life Infrastructure To Meet the Needs of Commercial Vehicles B. Long-Term Pavement Performance Program CATEGORY IV: PRODUCTIVITY, PLANNING, AND THE ENVIRONMENT Motor Carrier Productivity Research Planning Research Policy Research Environmental Research Right-of-Way Research CATEGORY V: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER A. Technology Assessment and Deployment Technology Assessment Technology Refinement and Packaging Technology Delivery B. Education and Training Local Technical Assistance Programs National Highway Institute and Academy University Transportation Centers Program University Research Institutes C. International Programs Import Foreign Technology Technology Transfer to Foreign Countries Promote U.S. Expertise

Classifying Highway Research 73 a way that highlights the rationale for these activities and that keeps the number of categories to a minimum. Distinctions between R&T activities that may be important to research managers sometimes have little meaning to policy makers, and a classifi- cation scheme intended for policy makers need not make these distinctions. For instance, a research manager needs to distinguish between pavement research and bridge research because they involve different technical issues and different research communities. In explaining the program to policy makers, however, this distinction is probably unnecessary because the moti- vation behind the research is the same: to find ways to build and maintain highway facilities at a lower cost, improved performance, or both. On the other hand, distinguishing between the pavement research of the Long- Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) and other pavement research may be appro- priate because of significant differences in approach and funding. Developing a framework that reflects the interests and concerns of pol- icy makers is clearly a subjective exercise. And because transportation con- cerns change, a framework that is useful today may not be so useful tomorrow. Nevertheless, a new approach was sought, and a framework was adopted that mixes several descriptors to define R&T categories. Mixing descriptors in this way is untidy, but it is necessary if the number of categories is to be kept to a manageable level and the categories are to be linked closely to the rationale for R&T. These descriptors include goals and mission, phase of innovation process, and scale of improvement sought. Like other classification schemes, the boundaries between the cat- egories are not always clear-cut, and some research arguably could fall into two or more categories. The eight categories that make up the framework are described here. Category 1: Incremental Improvements in Highway Performance and Costs The first category covers much of the research in the established, main- stream highway research programs. It seeks longer-lasting materials, improved maintenance practices, more efficient pavement and bridge design procedures, better traffic management strategies, more forgiving roadway and roadside designs, and fewer adverse environmental impacts. It does this by looking for evolutionary changes in the ways in which high- ways are planned, designed, constructed, maintained, financed, and man- aged. Its payoffs are relatively certain and tangible: lower maintenance and

74 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGiwIs AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS construction costs, added highway capacity, reduced highway fatalities and injuries, reduced adverse environmental impacts, and a variety of user ben- efits (improved travel time, fewer hazards, etc.) Category 2: Breakthrough Research To Improve Highway Performance and Costs The objectives of Category 2 are the same as those of Category 1, but the approach is different. Instead of seeking evolutionary improvements in cur- rent highway materials, methods, and designs, research in this category searches for breakthrough technologies that might lead to dramatic improvements in highway performance and cost. For example, it might seek wholly new ways to control vehicles on highways through electron- ics, to build bridges using newly engineered materials, or even to design asphalt pavements with radically new approaches to modeling performance. Some SHRP and IVHS activities fall in this category, as does the NCHRP- IDEA (Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis) program. This is spec- ulative, high-risk research with potentially high payoffs. Category 3: Reassessment of U.S. Transportation System and the Role of Highway Transportation Research in the third category takes a long-term view of highway trans- portation and its interactions with other modes, land use, the environment, and the national economy. Its purpose is to better understand these inter- actions and to help shape the long-term direction of both urban and rural highway transportation in the United States as well as in regions and indi- vidual states. It could be viewed as supportive, or even as part, of strate- gic and contingency planning for the nation's transportation system and its major subcomponents. Often drawing heavily on planning, management, and social science dis- ciplines, this research might address issues such as the long-term relationship between transportation and economic development; travel demands in the 21st century; the opportunities, applications, and potential effects of new transportation and communication technologies; and sustainable trans- portation. Payoffs of this type of research are inherently difficult to measure. Research funding in this category has increased over the past few years but it remains a small percentage of total R&T spending. The committee believes that research in this area is of crucial importance and therefore that it should be highlighted in the classification framework.

Classifying Highway Research 75 Category 4: Compliance with Government Regulations and Policy Proposals Category 4 covers two types of research. First, it includes the policy research that helps transportation agencies develop and assess proposals for changes (mostly short- and midrange changes) in regulations, taxes, and other policies that affect highway transportation. Truck size and weight studies and highway cost allocation studies fall into this subcategory. Second, the category includes research that helps highway agencies and others comply with new regulations and policies. For example, research on reducing air pollution emissions and complying with the Clean Air Act Amendments fits in this category. Category 5: Improvements in Intermodal Transportation Services That Involve Highways Research in the fifth category addresses interconnections between highways and other modes—existing and potential—and ways in which these inter- connections can be modified or developed to improve door-to-door inter- modal transportation services. It includes not only the physical design of intermodal connections (e.g., port facilities and park and ride lots) but also the institutional, economic, administrative, and regulatory issues associated with developing better intermodal connections. The category is included in the framework partly in recognition of the emphasis placed on inter- modal transportation by the most recent federal surface transportation leg- islation, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Category 6: Transfer of Promising Research Findings to Field Application Activities in Category 6 strive to transfer promising research results to field application. Good research needs a strong technology transfer program to have an impact, and vice versa. Technology transfer programs screen research results for promising products and new techniques and use a vari- ety of mechanisms for distributing information about these products and techniques. Such mechanisms include demonstrations, publications, and special training activities. Also included in this category are studies, surveys, and monitoring activ- ities that seek to better understand and improve the effectiveness of the innovation process for highways.

76 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Category 7: Education and Training of Highway Professionals The activities in Category 7 are not always considered to be part of a research program. However, transportation professionals increasmgly rec- ognize that attracting young people to and educating them in the field of transportation is critical to innovation. Indeed, the NAS/NAE/IOM panel cited earlier saw education as an integral part of R&T and as essential to building the technology and knowledge base necessary for innovation. Many TRB activities are directed at technology transfer through its exten- sive program of standing committees and its annual meeting. The National Highway Institute is dedicated to training and educating highway profes- sionals. In addition, the University Transportation Centers Program has complementary research and education objectives. Category 8: Other Research, Technical Support, and Testing Not all the activities in R&T programs fall into the previous seven cate- gories. In particular, state highway agency research programs (State Planning and Research and state-funded programs) sometimes include investigations into problems that are local or site-specific such as prema- ture failures; such activities are essentially consultative in nature but may lead to new research or technology transfer activities. And some state research programs include a unit that conducts routine acceptance tests on products and materials—technical work that is not research but is arguably part of the innovation process. Category 8 includes these and other R&T support activities that do not fit into the other categories. REFERENCES AASHTO. 1989. Innovation: A Strategy for Research, Development, and Technology Transfer. Washington, D.C. CERF. 1993. A Nationwide Survey of Civil Engineering-Related R&D. Report 93-5006. December. FHWA. 1992a. Nationally Coordinated Program ofHghway Research, Development, and Technology: Annual Progress Report Fiscal Year 1992. U.S. Department of Transportation, December. FHWA. 1992b. Research and Technology Program 1993-1997. U.S. Department of Transportation, June. NAS et al. 1988. Federal Science and Technology Budget Priorities, New Perspectives and Procedures. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Classifying Highway Research 77 NCHRP. 1993. Summary of Progress—December 31, 1993. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., December. TRB. 1987. Special Report 213: Research for Public Transit: New Directions. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials CERF Civil Engineering Research Foundation FHWA Federal Highway Administration IDEA Iniiovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis IOM Institute of Medicine IVHS intelligent vehicle-highway system NAE National Academy of Engineering NAS National Academy of Sciences NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program R&D research and development R&T research and technology SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program TRB Transportation Research Board

Mapping the Highway Research Program Using the New Framework This chapter describes the major elements of the existing highway research program in terms of the new framework discussed in Chapter 4. The description is based on "mapping" the annual research project expendi- tures against the eight categories of research and development (R&D) activity in this framework; expenditures were mapped for the research pro- grams of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), and a sample of state highway agencies. The mapping was designed primarily to help the com- mittee provide independent review and coordination on a continuing basis. It can be useful as well to policy makers, agency officials, and oth- ers who need to understand the program and exercise broad program oversight. The following sections describe how the mapping was carried out; each section presents the data and its sources, assumptions and limitations related to the data, and a discussion of what the results suggest about the program's activities. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES Several methodological issues affect the mapping exercise. A primary issue is the period of time chosen for analysis. One of the committee's aims is to examine regularly the direction of the research and technology (R&T) pro- 78

Mapping the Highway Research Program Using the New Framework79 gram and current research activity as an essential indicator of current research priorities. As a result, the focus fell on research program expen- ditures for the 1993 fiscal year for FHWA, State Planning and Research (SP&R), and NCHRP R&T programs. During any single year, in addition to newly initiated projects, projects started in previous years are also under way. Further analysis might require that past projects and successful and failed initiatives be considered as well. Thus, although the following sec- tions focus on FY 1993 program expenditures, they also include discus- sions of individual programs that involve information about initiatives or budget changes that broaden the perspective of the 1993 data. The mapping was based on project expenditures and project-related expenses only. Nonproject, research-related expenditures such as adminis- trative, management, equipment, and overhead expenses that are not specifically budgeted to specific projects or groups of projects (although some are) were not considered. More specific information about sources and the nature of the data is provided in the following section. Not included in the mapping are university R&D programs, association R&D, private-industry R&D, and R&D expenditures of other federal agencies. University R&D programs are funded largely through contracts with FHWA, state highway agencies, and NCHRP, so these project expen- ditures are already included. Association R&D is not included primarily because it is a small portion of the total R&D effort and because some associations are reluctant to disclose the extent of their research activities. Information about private-industry R&D expenditures would be useful, but it is generally difficult to obtain: private-sector R&D is aimed at achiev- ing a competitive advantage, and firms protect the property rights to their research results.' However, because associations and private-industry often conduct research under contract to FHWA and state highway agencies, some current research of this type is already accounted for. Finally, associ- ation and private industry research does not necessarily reflect the public- sector priority-setting issues that the committee sought to examine. (Combined annual association and private-sector R&D related to highway transportation is estimated to exceed $50 million.) Some other federal R&D related to highway transportation is not included here. For example, federal offices and agencies inside and outside the U.S. Department of Transportation—such as the Office of the Secretary, The Civil Engineering Research Foundation study confirmed this in identifying the three predominant factors for private-sector R&D as "increased earnings/profit objectives, a desire to keep the company on the leading edge, and growth objectives" (CERF 1993).

80 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECrIoNs Federal Transit Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Energy—fund research that affects some aspect of highway transportation. Nevertheless, FHWA, state, and NCHRP R&D programs account for the bulk of highway R&D and are used as the indica- tors of highway R&D program direction. Assigning research project expenditures to one of the eight categories is not always straightforward. As pointed Out in Chapter 4, some research could fall into more than one category because the boundaries between categories are less than precise. Agency representatives were consulted on questions about the nature of the research before an assignment was decided. Since the purpose of the mapping was to provide a rough estimate of research amounts in the categories every effort was made to achieve consistency in the assign- ments, even if exact values could not always be obtained. Finally, the committee recognized the limitations involved in using research expenditures as a measure of research investment. However, assessing the indi- vidual programs and projects was beyond the scope and resources of this report. As a starting point for its continuing examination of FHWA's R&T program, the committee can more carefully examine the expenditure data. FHWA R&T ACTIVITIES The mapping of FHWA R&T activities was based on 1993 expenditure data from the FHWA offices that conduct or sponsor research (see Figure 3-2). The data include project-related expenditures along with an identi- fier for each expenditure (see Table 4-2); only project-related expenditures were used in the mapping.2 Each expenditure was reviewed and assigned to one of the eight categories, and the dollar amounts were accumulated for the categories. If a category assignment was not straightforward, FHWA personnel were consulted. After all the expenditures were assigned to the research categories and the dollar amounts tabulated, percentages were calculated. The results of this mapping are given in Table 5-1. NCRRP R&T ACTIVITIES Data are available from the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on the 1993 NCHRP R&D expenditures. The data include project-related expen- ditures and designations to one of the NCHRP categories (see Table 3-1). 2 Identifiers arc from the classification system for FHWA's Nationally Coordinated Program of Highway Research, Development, and Technology.

Mapping the Highway Research Program Using the New Framework 81 TABLE 5-1 FHWA R&T Expenditures by Category, 1993 CATEGORY EXPENDITURE (%) 1. Incremental Improvements 59 2. Breakthrough Research 5 3. U.S. Transportation System Issues <1 4. Policy Analysis and Regulatory Compliance 9 5. Intermodal Transportation <1 6. Technology Transfer/Field Applications 11 7. Education and Training 10 8. Technical Support and Testing 6 The results of the category assignments are presented in Table 5-2. Projects assigned to the breakthrough category are from the NCHRP-IDEA (Ideas Deserving Exploratory Analysis) program. In addition to the 1993 expenditures, TEE has data on NCHRP expendi- tures from the beginning of the program, in 1963, through 1992. These expenditures were also assigned to the eight categories, and the results are given in Table 5-2. The differences reflect changing emphases over time and suggest that continuing review of R&D priorities can yield still ftirther changes. STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY R&T ACTiVITIES Highway research managed and conducted by the states includes the SP&R program research and state-fimded research. In addition, states pool TABLE 5-2 NCHRP R&D Expenditures by Category CATEGORY 1993 EXPENDITURE (%) 1963-1992 EXPENDITURE (%) Incremental Improvements 56 73 Breakthrough Research 13 <1.0 U.S. Transportation System Issues 4 2 Policy Analysis and Regulatory Compliance 0 4 Intermodal Transportation 10 <1.0 Technology Transfer/Field Applications 15 18 Education and Training 1 0 Technical Support and Testing 0 1 NOTE: See Table 5-5 for additional information about programmed NCHRP expenditures for 1994 and 1995.

82 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: Cu1NT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIoNs some SP&R funds to jointly fund activities, which are then usually man- aged by FHWA (see Chapter 3).3 Each state highway agency has its own distinctive organization and management system, and there is no single source of information about all the states' research activities and expendi- tures.' Thus, detailed information about state highway research expendi- tures can be obtained only from the individual state highway agencies. Although each state highway agency is required to prepare an annual SP&R program plan that includes an expenditure plan for the research por- tion of the SP&R funds, states are not required to report actual expenditures.' Nevertheless, some states have developed management systems that track expenditures on a project-by-project basis, and these data combined with the SP&R program plan can be used to map state R&D expenditures. But some state highway agencies do not routinely collect such data, and others are only beginning to establish highway research programs.6 As a consequence, gath- ering research expenditure data from all the states was impractical. Inquiries were made to a selection of state highway agencies that had large SP&R program budgets, well-established research programs, and state- funded research programs. Information was obtained on three types of state highway R&D activities: SP&R program projects, state-funded research pro- jects, and pooled-fund projects. Pooled-fund projects involve SP&R funds from several states that are pooled to create a budget large enough to carry Out a project of joint interest to the states. The estimated state research expenditures are presented in Table 5-3; the estimates are based on data from 15 states representing about 50 percent of 1993 SP&R research funds.7 Some states also have projects that are referred to as FHWA-fünded projects; these involve FHWA but not SP&R funds and have been included in the FHWA R&T program funds. The regional Research Advisory Committees of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials are attempting to gather some of this information on a regular basis, but the voluntary reporting system does not provide all the information needed here. Although FHWA must approve a state's SP&R program plan before the SP&R funds are released, FHWA does not require that the funds be spent as planned and does not require the states to report on actual project expenditures. In a notice of proposed rulemaking dated December 21, 1993, FHWA has requested comments on a proposed rule that, among other things, would require states to undergo an evaluation of their SP&R expenditures. 6 A provision of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [Section 6901, part (2)J requires states to spend at least 25 percent of the SP&R funds on research; it effec- tively forces state highway agencies to develop research programs. In 1993 10 states accounted for more than 46 percent of the SP&R allocations. Data were obtained from 15 states, including 8 of the top 10 states; these states accounted for 50 per- cent of SP&R allocations. The committee decided that the 15-state sample, which includes large and small states, was a reasonable approximation of the total. The request for the states' cooperation made it clear that comparisons between states would not be made and that the data would not be presented on a state-by-state basis.

Mapping the Highway Research Program Using the New Framework 83 TABLE 5-3 Estimated State R&D Expenditures by Category, 1993 CATEGORY - EXPENDITURE (%) Incremental Improvements 54 Breakthrough Research 0 U.S. Transportation System Issues <1 Policy Analysis and Regulatory Compliance <1 Intermodal Transportation <1 Technology Transfer/Field Applications 6 Education and Training 15 Technical Support and Testing 25 NOTE: Data from 15 states representing about 50 percent of 1993 SP&R research finds have been used to estimate the distribution for total SP&R research spending. Information was also obtained on state expenditures of SP&R funds for several research-related activities,' including R&D administration expenses; the NCHRP contribution; Local Transportation Assistance Program expenditures; TR.B Research Correlation Service contribution;9 research staff education, training, tuition, and travel related to these activities; and technology transfer activities. As appropriate, these expenditures were included in the allocation. CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM MAPPING Table 5-4 gives a summary of the percentage expenditures for FHWA, NCHRP, and a sample of state R&D programs. The mapping confirmed much of what was expected from such a broad-based R&D effort. For example, the FHWA R&T program focuses on short-term research aimed at many topics, remains true to its modal mission, and supports a sub- stantial amount of technology transfer and field applications. The mapping indicates a large amount of breakthrough research funded by FHWA in 1993, most of which was aimed at intelligent vehicle-highway systems (IVHS). If the research falls short of delivering useful products or if sup- 8 Guidelines on the approval expenditure categories are in FHWA TechnicalAdvisory T6000.1, March 30, 1984. The TRB Research Correlation Service was established in June 1945 in response to the rec- ommendation by the (then) American Association of State Highway Officials. Under this plan, TRB acts as the agent for the (now) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in organizing and administering the Research Correlation Service by means of field engineers, committee work, and publications. The service is financed on a yearly or multiycar basis by the state transportation departments, the modal administra- tion of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other funding.

84 HIGHWAY RESFARCH: CuRRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS TABLE 5-4 Sununary of Expenditure Assignments, 1993 CATEGORY FHWA EXPENDITURE (%) NCHRP STATES 1. Incremental Improvements 59 56 54 2. Breakthrough Research 5 13 0 3. U.S. Transportation System Issues <1 4 <1 4. Policy Analysis and Regulatory Compliance 9 0 <1 5. Intermodal Transportation <1 10 <1 6. Technology Transfer1'Field Applications 11 15 6 7. Education and Trainrng 10 <1 15 8. Technical Support and Testing 6 0 25 port of IVHS declines, this category, as a percentage of the total, will drop noticeably. Two categories that the committee considers important topics, U.S. transportation system issues and intermodal issues, are not significant research topics at FHWA. Although the committee chose to examine 1993 R&T expenditures, it recognized that all programs have.variations in funding and focus over time. The availability of project expenditure data for the NCHRP pro- gram from 1963 to 1993 coupled with programmed expenditures for 1994 and 1995 provide a unique basis for further examination of the pro- gram. NCHRP project expenditures reflect the overriding interests of the state officials who select the research topics. A significant change in FY 1993 was the beginning of the NCHRP-IDEA program, which is mapped in the breakthrough research category. The mapping also indicates inter- est in intermodal issues, which are a growing concern in the states, par- ticularly states with ports. Because the U.S. transportation system has been planned, funded, constructed, and operated on a modal basis, the intermodal initiatives of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), which address long-neglected intermodal planning and operational issues, require new analytical tools and evaluation methodologies. The ISTEA legislation had a major impact on all highway R&D, includ- ing the NCHRP program. It increased funding for NCHRP to more than $15 million for FY 1992, the first substantial increase in six years. However, by the time that the funds were actually available, the FY 1992 and FY 1993 programs had already been formulated, leaving a large unobligated

Mapping the Highway Research Program Using the New Framework 85 balance available for the FY 1994 program. Furthermore, FY 1995 will have the highest budget ever, at $18.6 million; as a result, about 30 per- cent of total NCHRP spending (expenditures plus programmed alloca- tions) from 1963 to 1995 will be spent in the three years from 1993 through 1995. Table 5-5 gives the percentage expenditures by category for the periods 1963-1992 and 1993-1995. Four categories are noticeably affected by the increase: Category 2, Breakthrough Research To Improve Highway Performance and Costs; Category 4, Compliance with Government Regulations and Policy Proposals; Category 5, Improvements in Intermodal Transportation Services That Involve Highways; and Category 8, Other Research, Technical Support, and Testing. Categories 2, 4, and 5 are cate- gories that the committee believes should receive greater support within the highway R&T program; although these NCHRP expenditures are com- mendable, their effect is slight because of the program's relative size. The mapping of state highway R&D expenditures indicates that incre- mental research and problem solving are most important to the states. Because states are operating agencies that are close to the motoring pub- lic and commodity haulers, they often need immediate answers to techni- cal questions. The new classification system was aimed at presenting a broad picture of R&D expenditures, but the results showed such a predominance of R&D spending in the incremental improvements category that additional information was sought by breaking down this category into the techni- TABLE 5-5 NCHRP R&D Expenditures by Category for 1963-1992 and 1993-1995 CATEGORY 1963-1992 EXPENDITURE (%) 1993-1995 EXPENDITURE (%) 1. Incremental Improvements 73 62 2. Breakthrough Research 0 4 3. U.S. Transportation System Issues 2 3 4. Policy Analysis and Regulatory Compliance 4 11 5. Intermodal Transportation 0 4 6. Technology Transfer/Field Applications 18 9 7. Education and Training 0 3 8. Technical Support and Testing 1 5

86 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIREcTIoNs TABLE 5-6 Expenditures in Incremental Research Category by Technical Topic, 1993 EXPENDITURE (%) TEcimIcM. Tonic FHWA NCHRP STATES TOTAL Highway safety, mcluding highway design 11 10 8 10 Traffic operations; 1VHS 47 17 18 42 Pavements: design, construction, performance 10 13 33 17 Bridges and other structures 14 33 21 16 Materials and maintenance 5 3 12 5 Environment 4 24 2 4 Planning 10 0 6 9 cal topics given in Table 5-6. (Note that all the limitations of classifica- tion systems described in Chapter 4 apply here as well.) Using this set of technical topics, assignments were made for all the research expenditures in the incremental improvement category. The results are presented in Table 5-6; FHWA expenditures largely determine the total distribution of R&D expenditures. The current emphasis on IVHS research at FHWA stands out, although the states, through both NCHRP and SP&R research, are focusing on traffic operations and IVHS research as well. Environmental issues are not a major research topic in 1993, although with ISTEA, the Clean Air Act Amendments, and other legislation, it is likely to become one. The value of this mapping is that it illustrates major components and, if developed over several years, could be used to track trends in R&D priorities. REFERENCE CERF. 1993. A Nationwide Survey of Civil Engineering—Related R&D. Report 93-5006. December. ABBREVIATIONS FHWA Federal Highway Administration IDEA Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

Mapping the Highway Research Program Using the New Framework 87 IVHS intelligent vehicle-highway system NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program R&D research and development R&T research and tecimology SP&R State Planning and Research TRB Transportation Research Board

New Directions for Highway Research and Technology Programs P revious chapters have reviewed the nature of the highway industry, summarized existing highway research and technology (R&T) pro- grams, presented an alternative framework for describing highway R&T, and mapped R&T spending in terms of its broad objectives (e.g., incre- mental improvements). This chapter builds on that material and, after brief comments about the highway R&T program, describes the committee's vision of how highway R&T programs should be redirected to meet high- way transportation system needs for the next century. The recommenda- tions are based on the results of the mapping exercise and on the committee's understanding of the highway industry and the critical prob- lems and challenges that face it. They also echo many discussions that took place during committee meetings. STRENGTHS OF HIGHWAY R&T Although this report suggests several changes and some redirection in the nation's highway R&T program, the committee found that the program has a solid foundation and has shown marked improvement over the past decade. More specifically, the program is characterized by the following: 1. The highway R&T program is very decentralized, mirroring the industry it serves. As a result, consumers of research can tap into the pro- 88

New Directions for Highway Research and Technology Programs 89 gram at many levels; because the industry is so highly fragmented, a more centralized R&T program would probably make it even more difficult to establish productive links between researchers and the users of the research products. R&T funding has increased steadily over the past decade, which is an encouraging trend. Unfortunately, actual funding remains small relative to the size of the industry and the opportunities and needs that drive the research. [The $275 million spent in 1993 by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), State Planning and Research programs, and National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) is about a 250 percent increase over 1982 levels when adjusted for inflation, but it is only about 0.3 percent of total highway expenditures.] Over the past decade, the horizons of the R&T program have expanded in several ways, including the following: the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) focused on chronic problems with the dura- bility of highway pavements and structures that plagued highway agen- cies for decades and provided new products and methods that are being introduced into practice; highway agencies and transportation companies using highways have begun to explore seriously how computer and infor- mation technology can be harnessed to improve highway system capacity and safety [the intelligent vehicle-highway system (WHS) program]; and research sponsors have recognized the need for earlier and broader par- ticipation by, and coordination with, the users of research results. During the 1980s the highway industry leadership increasingly turned to research for answers to its problems. Such problems include spe- cific issues such as traffic congestion and pavement design as well as broader issues such as measuring environmental impacts and developing strategies for sustainable transportation. Increased interest in and support for research and development (R&D) has also spawned such ventures as the Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center (HITEC), aimed at facilitating the transfer of new highway technologies to the field, and a National Research Council study committee that will explore alternative approaches for increasing private-sector participation in the highway inno- vation process. In the field of highway research, the activities of both SHRP and the IVHS program have witnessed unprecedented levels of public/private interaction and cooperation that have yielded important accomplishments for both programs. The development of such public/private ties is encour- aging and useful to highway R&T programs, but there is much room for additional joint effort.

90 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS COMMITTEE'S VISION FOR HIGHWAY R&T Compared with the present, the highway R&T program for the next decade should have the characteristics described in the following. Larger-Scale Program with More Funding Current funding for highway R&T remains low compared with that for other low-tech industries, including such industries as textiles, mining, and paper products. SHRP has demonstrated that a highly focused pavement and bridge research program can yield useful products for the highway industry; many other areas of highway research have potential for large pay- offs as well. In addition, the vast array of environmental, economic, and social concerns related to the highway system suggest that it would be wise to invest now in research on the fundamental questions associated with these concerns. A better-funded program should include more federal and state funds for R&T, more private-sector funding, more partnering among public agencies, and more public/private cooperative efforts. Additional Exploratory and High-Risk Research During the 1950s and 1960s there was a strong consensus on the future role of highways in the United States and the steps needed to fulfill that role. The cornerstone of that vision was a nationwide network of high- capacity superhighways, and the research agenda was derived largely from the vision: developing heavy-duty pavements, determining appropriate geometric design standards for high-speed traffic, searching for cost- effective bridge designs, and so forth. Later, research was needed to meet the unexpected challenges that this system brought forth, such as traffic growth, congestion, and highway safety. Today, as the designation of the National Highway System is of prime concern and intermodal issues begin to be addressed, there are several dif- ferent, sometimes conflicting, visions for the future of the nation's highways: automated highways, a renaissance of transit and higher-density urban devel- opment, increased vehicle miles of travel and reduced automobile emissions via a "green car," and so on. In addition, factors such as maturing telecom- munications technologies and their impact on many aspects of transporta- tion systems as well as travel demand should be taken into account. Just as the vision of the Interstate highway system shaped the research program of previous decades, a new vision must shape the future R&T pro-

New Directions for Highway Research and Technology Programs 91 gram. The research program must help define the role of highways in the future and be part of a contingency planning process that explicitly rec- ognizes that uncertainties exist about the future. The program should include more exploratory research even though this involves more uncer- tainty about the expected payoffs of the research. In addition, calculated risks must be taken in some of the more tradi- tional areas of highway research such as materials.' In part, such risks are warranted because the nation is approaching the point of diminishing returns for research investments with conventional technologies. The search for large gains should include an examination of revolutionary changes in materials and methods. The R&T program should also improve its ability to identify and evaluate new technologies with potential appli- cation to highway transportation and be prepared to capitalize on them. The specific implication of this shift is increased effort in two of the cate- gories described in Chapter 4: Category 2, Breakthrough Research To Improve Highway Performance and Costs, and Category 3, Reassessment of U.S. Transportation System and the Role of Highway Transportation. Broader Perspective Within Highway R&T Program Both the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Clean Air Act Amendments have established mandates for manag- ing highway transportation in an intermodal context and addressing critical environmental goals. The future R&T program must be more inclusive: it must address the interactions among highways, other transportation modes, and nontransport societal objectives while recognizing the mutual depen- dence of highway transportation and other social goals and activities and the public's expectation that highway agencies pay attention to these interde- pendencies.2 This must be achieved within the context of the high U.S. stan- dard of living and its dependence on a flexible personal transportation system and the desire to continue to improve the quality of life for all citizens. For example, highways are expected to contribute to the solution not only of environmental goals to which they are directly related but also of Risky research is assumed to include research whose ultimate payoffs are uncertain because the research is at a very preliminary, conceptual stage or because the activity seeks informa- tion that affects decisions, not designs or construction methods. 2 Addressing such issues is a major and continuing challenge for transportation agencies, and research aimed at dealing with these issues is particularly difficult if overall research funding is inadequate.

92 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMs AND FUTURE DIREcTIoNs environmental and social goals for which the relationship is less direct (e.g., incorporating waste materials in construction, providing job access to the inner-city poor). Research can help provide realistic guidance about how the highway industry contributes to meeting such goals by identifying the advantages and disadvantages of such activities as well as examining their physical and economic consequences. Conducting research that involves specialists in transportation and other fields and forming cooperative ven- tures between highway agencies at different levels and with private indus- try helps lead to solutions with a high likelihood of implementation. Taking a broader perspective should include increased activity under Category 5, Improvements in Intermodal Transportation Services That Involve Highways, as well some activity under Category 3, Reassessment of U.S. Transportation System and the Role of Highway Transportation. Comprehensive Approach to Barriers to Innovation There are substantial barriers to the timely development and use of new tech- nologies. When program planning for SHRP was initiated, the focus was squarely on research activities; other parts of the innovation process—speci- fication development, demonstrations, training, and such associated with the use of the research products—received little attention (Kulash 1993). But as SHRP evolved, it became evident to the members of the SHRP governing and technical committees that the innovation process is not automatic and that it must be considered while research activities are being planned if inno- vative methods and products are to enter practice in a timely manner. Consequently, the SHRP work program was altered to address these issues. The lesson for future research is that to have an effective innovation program, implementation should be considered an essential part of the research plan. The need to give greater attention to implementation encompasses other issues. For example, even though SHRP had widespread support throughout the highway industry, a well-conceived research program plan, and dedicated funding, it took considerable time to move from program concept to available products. Although it is important to get promising new research findings into practice, there is ample evidence of efficient and cost-effective technology that is available but not achieving widespread acceptance by the highway industry.3 In recent years highway leadership Some of these issues are being addressed in a current National Cooperative Highway Research Program project on facilitating the implementation of research findings (Project 20-33). One such issue, the perception of increasingly frequent litigation against project own- ers and/or contractors involved in projects with innovative design or methods, is often over- looked.

New Directions for Highway Research and Technology Programs 93 has begun to recognize this and tried to change it; these changes involve FHWA, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Associated General Contractors, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, and other organizations whose mem- bers are involved directly. Many changes were stimulated by the tours of European asphalt and concrete pavements (AASHTO 1991, FHWA 1993a). Several initiatives are already under way with support from FHWA, NCHRP, and AASHTO, as well as other private-sector organizations.4 Nevertheless, continued and increased R&T emphasis on Category 6, Transfer of Promising Research Findings to Field Application, and Category 7, Education and Training of Highway Professionals, is warranted.5 More than anything, however, the commitment and level of support of top management determine the pace by which barriers to implementation will be dismantled. Increased Research Cooperation and Coordination Efforts The magnitude and complexity of many of today's transportation issues, coupled with limited resources to analyze and solve them, demand that FHWA seek the broadest possible cooperation and coordination with all parties involved. Several steps must be taken. First, FHWA should continue to expand its initiatives aimed at ensuring that other federal agencies, as well as state and local agencies, have active roles in its research efforts addressing these complex issues.6 Existing cooperative research with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in transportation and air quality planning and the recent initiative with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development examining the relationships between trans- portation, housing, and job access are specific examples of promising engagement with other federal agencies. The National Quality Initiative, a series of training sessions and seminars aimed at pro- moting the use of formal quality improvement processes throughout the highway industry, is one example. It was organized by FHWA, AASHTO, and six other highway industry asso- ciations directly involved with highway construction. In May 1994 an agreement was made to provide FHWA and the state departments of trans- portation access to the National Technological University, a satellite communications net- work composed of 45 universities, for seminars, college courses, and degree programs. 6 The committee acknowledges that FHWA currently exhibits a relatively high degree of coor- dination with other federal agencies inside and outside the U.S. Department of Transportation but believes that these efforts should be expanded. Close cooperation should be developed and maintained with agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Institute for Standards and Technology, and Bureau of Reclamation.

94 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Second, the search for research findings that will be accepted and imple- mented by the highway industry requires that FHWA expand its cooperative efforts with the private sector. Considerable public/private cooperation can be seen in recent activities such as SHRP, the IVHS program, the planning and operation of HITEC, and the proposed highway industry research advi- sory council.7 Nevertheless, even greater engagement of the private sector is needed if innovation is to be accelerated in the highway field. Finally, because highway authorities throughout the world share many concerns in the planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of high- way systems, there is great opportunity in a more systematic approach to international information exchange and technology transfer. Past and recent activities of FHWA, AASHTO, and other organizations illustrate this poten- tial.8 In addition, in 1991 ISTEA mandated a more proactive approach to information sharing and technology exchange on a global scale. It created, within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the International Highway Transportation Outreach Program to inform the domestic trans- portation community of technological innovations abroad that could sig- nificantly improve the nation's highway transportation system, to promote U.S. highway transportation expertise internationally, and to increase trans- fers of U.S. highway transportation technology to foreign countries and provide funding to carry out these activities. Thus, FHWA, working through its Office of International Programs with DOT, can take the lead in organizing a more systematic approach to inter- national information exchange and technology transfer in highway R&T. FHWA recently initiated increased cooperation with the Pan American study committee of the Transportation Research Board is exploring the feasibility of such a council, which would focus on private-sector highway R&T activities. Close cooperation should be developed and maintained with agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Institute for Standards and Technology, and Bureau of Reclamation. 8 The United States has participated in the Road Transport Research Program of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development since 1960; AASHTO has been a member of the Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC) for 7 years. Other organizations, such as the International Road Federation and the Institute of Transportation Engineers, have provided U.S. highway professionals with information about international developments in highway practice and R&D for many years. The 1990 and 1992 European study tours identified several pavement technologies as well as testing and con- tracting practices that could be useful in the United States (AASHTO 1991, FHWA 1993a). 1VHS researchers are closely monitoring and evaluating critical research and field testing in Europe and Japan to ensure that the vast potential of these technologies is realized as quickly and efficiently as possible (TRB 1991a). Finally, ITS America participates in the annual 1VHS World Congresses.

New Directions for Highway Research and Technology Programs 95 Congress and became a full member of the Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC). The committee endorses and supports FHWA's efforts at international cooperation; further coordination of these and other international highway research activities should be a con- tinuing part of FHWA's R&T operation. EMPHASIS AREAS FOR FUTURE HIGHWAY R&T PROGRAM Whereas the preceding section presents some characteristics of the future highway R&T program, this section identifies several areas for emphasis in the program, encompassing both research topics and management needs. The list is not comprehensive, however; the committee's aim in preparing this report was to provide an overview of highway R&T, not to prepare a strategic plan for highway R&T. Nevertheless, the process identified some immediate needs that should be reported now. The committee may choose to further examine these topics in the future and to work with FHWA in formulating detailed action plans. In any event, addressing these priori- ties will require more R&T program funding. Reassessment of U.S. Transportation System and the Role of Highways Even if the nation were not facing various environmental imperatives, uncertainty about the future role of highway transportation would exist and a substantial increase in research in this area would be warranted. Some research is currently under way in response to ISTEA, stimulated by the need for a new framework for transportation systems planning and imple- mentation that is based on an intermodal perspective and accounts for the demands of global economic and environmental sensibilities (TRB 1993, p.2). The nation's dependence on its highway transportation system is unlikely to change anytime soon. Moreover, all parts of the transportation system will continue to grow. Research can help decision makers by devel- oping the tools needed to examine how new highway linkages can improve the overall efficiency of the entire transportation system and to identify the, most cost-effective improvements. In addition, such topics as estimating the consequences of alternative land use and transportation scenarios for accommodating future growth, pricing and other behavior modification approaches to congestion, and examining prospects for intermodalism and diversion to nonbighway

96 HIGHwAY RESEARCH: CuPJuuT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIoNs modes need to be examined more fully. Realizing that changes cannot occur overnight, the committee believes strongly that the kind of highway transportation system that the nation wants in 20 years—or 30 years, or 40 years—should be identified and a research program that will help achieve such a system should then be formulated. Such an effort should involve the entire transportation community and probably should be orga- nized and facilitated by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. Environmental Research Environmental research will require greater attention and more resources than in the past. Far-reaching environmental issues that confront highway agencies include air quality; surface water; groundwater; wetlands; noise; archeological and historic sites; biological, botanical, and natural systems; energy use; and the problems posed by hazardous wastes and hazardous materials transport and use. Moreover, such issues affect the planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of highway systems, and regulatory requirements related to them will probably continue to increase during the next several decades. Environmental problems apply to many sectors of the economy, and often across them, as well. Therefore, solutions can be found in a range of research programs. Highway R&D should focus on topics that are spe- cific to transportation or for which significant adaptation of solutions else- where is necessary—for example, transportation air quality planning and monitoring. For other topics, as mentioned previously, cooperative research undertaken with nonhighway groups can help leverage available research funds and achieve results that all parties can adopt; examples include the disposal of hazardous wastes found in highway rights of way and the use of waste products in highway construction. Transportation agencies face several types of environmental research problem. One type involves devising methods for ameliorating the effects of highway construction and maintenance on the environment. Much of this work stems from EPA regulations that originated in a provision of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 that called for evaluations of the environmental impacts of federally funded projects. Frequently this research was directed to the environmental consequences of the addition and operation of new highway capacity, although it has shifted from the one-time effects of construction or maintenance to the chronic impacts of new highways, including long-term effects on air quality, land use and open space, and resource and energy use. Most of this activity has focused

New Directions for Highway Research and Technology Programs 97 on adopting and adapting successful solutions devised in other industries and sectors directly to highway systems. A second type of environmental research encompasses broad policy issues associated with providing a future highway system while addressing the issues of equity, mobility, efficient use of resources, and environmen- tal protection. Developing optimal methods for handling environmental planning requirements, identifying environmentally sound solutions for transportation corridor problems, and finding efficient approaches to high- ways and transportation systems are examples. In addition, hard policy questions need to be addressed: for example, determining if there are envi- ronmental consequences of increasing transportation capacity that can- not be mitigated and, if so, whether society is willing to pay the real costs of providing additional capacity. Well-developed environmental research programs can provide the basis for reasoned decision making on the inevitable trade-offs among environmental quality, mobility, and the effi- cient operation of the economy. A third type of environmental research is aimed at using transportation- related activities to achieve environmental benefits. Recycling waste mate- rials in highway construction is one approach,9 but research on each proposed solution is needed because applications that do not consider fully the long-term technical and economic consequences can lead to costly problems later. Contracting for Innovation Innovative contracting has two important components: contracting and procurement practices for highway construction and those for highway R&T. Both can affect the introduction of innovative technology in high- way construction. Regarding highway construction, a special TRB Task Force on Innovative Contracting Practices found that the introduction of innovative construction practices has been slow and that the potential ben- efits need to be identified clearly before public and private agencies change their traditional approaches (TRB 1991b). For example, although low-bid contracting with method specifications has served the industry and the public well for many years, it can be a substantial barrier to innovation and does not support the overall goal to reduce life-cycle costs. Recycling examples include using rubber from old tires as an additive to asphalt pavement mixtures, using old tires in a fill or embankment, using waste glass as a substitute for silica sand, and manufacturing noise barriers from recycled plastic matenals.

98 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DiREcrioNs However, before state and local agencies in the United States will con- sider alternative contracting procedures such as performance-based speci- fications for materials and processes in highway construction, more research is needed. For example, FHWA should examine whether exist- ing highway construction contracting practices in the U.S. act as barriers to innovation and, if they do, determine their cost to the taxpayer, develop incentives for removing these barriers, and identify alternatives to existing practice. Undertaken in cooperation with the private sector, such activity could yield substantial dividends and might be organized as part of FHWA's existing technology transfer activities. The results of the recent industry-government tour to examine contract administration practices in Germany, France, Austria, and Spain could suggest research into alter- native contracting techniques to accelerate the application of innovative technology in the United States (FHWA 1994). FHWA recently completed a review of "all practices that may be employed in providing improved contracting and assistance support (e.g., contracting, grants, cooperative agreements) to support FHWA R&D programs" (FHWA 1993b).10 Its purpose was to determine whether FHWA's research con- tracting and procurement practices impede successful innovation. As a result, FHWA has implemented several changes to ensure that contracting and pro- curement procedures are in place to support its goal of establishing and main- taining a world-class research capability to develop innovative technology. Support for Breakthrough Research On the basis of the mapping exercise, most breakthrough research under way is related to FHWA's IVHS activities. In addition, the Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) programs (NCHRP; Transit Cooperative Research Program, or TCRP; and IVHS) signify awareness that new and innovative technologies need to be sought; however, their funding is low and follow-up efforts will be needed to ensure the devel- opment and implementation of promising IDEA project results. FHWA's proposed Office of Advanced Research could have been the focal point for breakthrough research activities and a firm step in the right direction; how- ever, funding for the office has never been appropriated. The focus on near- term problems and solutions in state highway R&D programs is unlikely The study was an early recommendation of the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee.

New Directions for Highway Research and Technology Programs 99 to change. Nevertheless, there are promising signs of greater recognition that R&D is an essential part of defining the future highway system, from both policy makers (as evidenced by ISTEA) and highway officials (whose participation in, and response to, the SHRP activities has been positive). As noted, a key issue for FHWA is deciding what the nation's highway transportation system will look like in the future. Addressing this issue should help FHWA focus on potential breakthrough topics related to achieving the system that it foresees. In conjunction with such an activity, FHWA could use the opportunity for selecting key technology issues to be examined in its R&T program; special consideration should be given to policy and planning topics inasmuch as they are often overlooked in the identification of potential breakthrough or innovative topics. FHWA should search regularly for opportunities for breakthrough research, much like it currently searches for and specifies incremental R&D topics; continue supporting and monitoring IDEA and other programs that address innovative research topics; develop a mechanism for follow- ing through with support for research, development, and implementation for promising breakthrough topics; and ensure that it is keeping track of advanced research topics being pursued in other federal agencies and in the national labs. Finally, current defense conversion activities provide an opportunity for addressing potential research topics, particularly breakthrough topics. Defense conversion seeks to direct the technical talent of that industry toward other problems in the nation, including those of transportation. For example, the Technology Reinvestment Project (TR.P) focuses defense and commercial resources on the development of dual-use prod- uct and process technologies through a cost-sharing, competitive R&D program that awarded more than $600 million in federal funds in FY 1993. The committee has concluded that FHWA, working with other DOT agencies, should take an active role in defining how transportation can benefit from this effort. If the experience and technical skills of the defense community can be matched properly to the needs of the trans- portation industry, particularly in such areas as communications, high- performance materials, and computer systems, the highway industry could benefit significantly." Realizing the full potential of TR.P for the highway sector could be complicated by sev- eral fctors, including different scales for both the markets and the research budgets involved, the different organizational arrangements and operating styles of the two sectors, and the need to match appropriate technical skills to highway research needs.

100 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Resistance to Long-Term and Intermodal Research Many of the potential research topics just discussed are complex, cut across traditional modal and disciplinary boundaries, and have not been addressed systematically in the past; some also involve aspects outside the traditional transportation mainstream. Moreover, meaningful results will take a long- term commitment of resources and will require overcoming several barri- ers, including the following. First, today there is not much opportunity for long-term research because of the way in which research is funded. Congressional and state legislative committees that look closely at high- way and transportation agency budgets resist R&D that does not address immediate concerns. Second, because R&D funding is tied to the modal administrations and their well-defined boundaries, there is little support within them for R&D that cuts across these boundaries. Finally, although transportation infrastructure lasts for generations and has many long-term effects, tools and methods for estimating these effects are inadequate and there is little or no incentive to develop them. Several factors could be improving the outlook for long-term research. The newly created Interagency Coordinating Committee for Transpor- tation Research and Development within DOT is attempting to develop a framework for assessing transportation-related R&T needs and oppor- tunities. This group could help dismantle some of the barriers to long-term transportation R&D as well as coordinate future transportation R&D within the department. Some activities related to defense conversion could also signal change; work under way at Los Alamos National Laboratory is aimed at developing computer models for transportation planning that are based on models developed for the military. This effort illustrates that some topics requiring long-term research can stimulate support for what appears to be a radical departure from business as usual. Because of the need to update an almost-30-year-old modeling system to meet dra- matically changing requirements of transportation planning and air quality modeling, FHWA initiated what could be a long-term R&D effort involving the conversion of defense-related technology for use in transportation.12 12 Aftcr an initial proof of concept phase funded by FHWA, Los Alamos National Laboratory has received funds from FHWA and EPA and might receive funds from the U.S. Depart- ment of Energy as well. FHWA estimates that the project will take 5 years and $27 million to complete.

New Directions for Highway Research and Technology Programs 101 CONCLUDING COMMENTS This overview report was prompted by the need to describe the current highway R&T program at a level that matches the interests of policy mak- ers, agency officials, and others who need to understand the program and exercise broad program oversight. It will also aid the work of the author- ing committee in its efforts to provide an independent review and coor- dination on a continuing basis; it gives the committee a platform for identifying gaps in the highway R&T program, leading to broad recom- mendations for future program direction. Previous sections have pointed out the accomplishments of highway R&T, laid Out the committee's vision for future highway R&T, and presented some initial emphasis areas for the program. The following briefly describes what the committee suggests be done next. As mentioned earlier, the highway system is in a state of transition largely because its centerpiece, the Interstate highway system, is virtually complete. While this enormous public works program was under way, the goal for the highway industry was clear; now, the industry's goal is less defined and it is necessary to determine the future of the highway system to help organize and direct the R&T program efforts. Moreover, ISTEA established a new vision for surface transportation in the United States and substantially increased funding for highway R&T. Highway agencies must cope with a maturing highway system in need of rehabilitation and renovation at a time of increasing travel demand. A daunting set of challenges—including congestion, environment and energy concerns, highway safety, and the complex institutional arrangements underlying the administration and management of the highway system— faces the agencies. The complexity of these challenges, coupled with their potential solutions, prevents them from being handled by a single agency or level of government; improvements will come about only through the cooperative efforts of the federal, state, and local agencies involved and the private sector. For example, the issue of congestion in cities and suburbs is tied closely to regional environmental issues, including air quality, water quality, and noise, and cannot be solved by any agency acting alone. Initiatives such as DOT's Interagency Coordinating Committee for Transportation Research and Development should provide support and guidance to greater interagency cooperation while reinforcing the coop- erative efforts already under way at FHWA. Thus, the future role of highways in the U.S. transportation system and in our society needs defining now. Although the proposed National

102 HIGHwAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Highway System is not a major new construction project, it could be an important first step toward establishing the nation's intermodal trans- portation system and providing a basis for future highway and other modal investments. In addition, many other factors, trends, and events challenge the effec- tiveness of highway R&T program activities. Two of significance are the education and training of highway engineers and technicians and the changing organizational environment of FHWA and state departments of transportation. The committee's discussions confirm that education and training are as important as research in improving highway transportation (OTA 1991). Much of FHWA's technology transfer activities as well as many efforts supported by the states and professional organizations are directed at potential technology users. Nonetheless, more must be done because the value of R&D products can be jeopardized by the inability of highway engineers and technicians to adopt and use them properly. The changing organizational environment within FHWA and the state agencies will probably affect the states' ability to carry out R&D as well as to implement R&D findings. Downsizing is seen as an effective cost- cutting technique for government agencies, and pressure at federal and state levels is forcing major changes in the organization and conduct of R&D. The effects of that downsizing on the ways that R&D is managed and its products are used should be examined carefully. The next step for the committee will be to examine several of these top- ics in greater detail so that more specific research recommendations can be developed. The committee will continue to evaluate specific FHWA pro- gram proposals, provide suggestions for future research opportunities, and address issues that it believes are important to the success of highway R&T activities. REFERENCES AASHTO. 1991. Report on the 1990 European Asphalt Study Tour. June. FHWA. 1993a. Report on the 1992 U.S. Tour of European Concrete Hghways. FHWA. 1993b. A Report on Research and Development Contracting and Assistance. Report OPR-A93-1. Office of Program Review, June. FHWA. 1994. Contract Administration Techniques for Quality Enhancement Study Tour (CATQEST). June. Kulash, D. 1993. Improving Research Effectiveness: Some Reflections Based on Experience Within the Strategic Highway Research Program. FHWA/OECD Conference, Williamsburg, Va. OTA. 1991. Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Financing. OTA-SET-477. U.S. Congress.

New Directions for Highway Research and Technology Programs 103 TRB. 1991a. Special Report 232: Advanced Vehicle and Highway Technologies. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., December. TRB. 199 lb. Transportation Research Circular 386: Innovative Contracting Practices. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., December. TRB. 1993. Special Report 240: ISTEA and Intermodal Planning: Concept, Practice, Vision. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EPA Environmental Protection Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration HITEC Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center IDEA Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 IVHS intelligent vehicle-highway system NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program OTA Office of Technology Assessment R&D research and development R&T research and technology SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program TRY Technology Reinvestment Project

Study Conmiittee Biographical Information H. Norman Abramson, Chairman, retired as Executive Vice President of Southwest Research Institute in 1991, after 35 years of service in increas- ingly responsible positions. Dr. Abramson has bachelor's and master's degrees in mechanical engineering and engineering mechanics from Stanford University and a doctorate in engineering mechanics from the Unièrsity of Texas at Austin. He is internationally known in the field of theoretical and applied mechanics and particularly for his expertise in the dynamics of con- tained liquids in astronautical, nuclear, and marine systems. He is a past Vice President and past Governor of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and a past Director of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; he has also served as an officer or director of several other pro- fessional societies. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and was an elected member of its council from 1984 to 1990. He has served on a variety of NAE and National Research Council committees and panels, including the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; U.S. National Committee on Theoretical and Applied Mechanics; Committee on Computational Mechanics; Committee on Earthquake Engineering Facilities; Ship Structure Committee; and Committee on Technology Policy Options in a Global Economy. Dr. Abramson has also served on advisory boards to several government agencies and as a consul- tant to a number of private organizations. A. Ray Chamberlain, Vice Chairman, is Vice President of Freight Policy for the American Trucking Associations. He received a bachelor's degree from Michigan State University, a master's degree from Washington State University, and a doctorate from Colorado State University. Dr. Chamberlain served as the Executive Director of Colorado's Department of Trans- portation for more than 6 years. He has held executive positions in the pri- vate sector, including Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Chemagnetics, Inc.; Executive Vice President of Simons, Li & Associates; and President of Mitchel & Co., Inc. He was President of Colorado State University for 10 104

Study Committee Biographical Information 105 years. A registered professional engineer, he is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). He has served as Chairman of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and as Chairman of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Executive Committee. He was a member of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) Executive Committee and Chairman of the TRB Strategic Transportation Research Study on Highway Safety. laurence J. Adams retired as President and Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Martin Marietta Corporation in 1986. Mr. Adams joined Martin Marietta in 1948 as a stress analyst. He served in various technical and management positions in the Titan I and Titan II Intercontinental Baffistic Missile pro- grams. He also served as Technical Director of the Air Force Titan III space launch vehicle. He served several years as the Chief Engineer of the Denver Division of Martin Marietta and was subsequently promoted to Vice President and General Manager of the Denver Division. He became President of Martin Marietta's Aerospace Company in 1976, and in 1982 he became President and COO of the corporation. He is past President of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and past Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the National Security Industrial Association. He has received several awards from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and U.S. Air Force for his technical and management con- tributions to their system development programs. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and has chaired and served on several National Research Council committees that focused on space technology. Mr. Adams served as a naval aviator during World War II. He holds a bach- elor's degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Minnesota. Kathleen Braaten is a former Commissioner for Richland County, North Dakota, a position she held for 20 years. She has served as President and Vice President of the National Association of Counties (NACO) and rep- resented NACO on the National Council on Public Works Improvement. She has also served on NACO's Information Task Force and Welfare Reform Task Force. For 4 years she was Chairman of the NACO Intergovernmental Relations Steering Committee. She has served for 15 years on the North Dakota County Commissioners' Association Legislative Committee and is past President; she has also served on the North Dakota State Tax Appeals Board and the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee. Ms. Braaten is a graduate of the St. Francis School of Nursing.

106 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECrIoNs David G. Burwell is President and co-founder of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and a member of the Executive Committee of the Surface Transportation Policy Project. He has a bachelor's degree in political science from Dartmouth College and a doctor of jurisprudence degree from the University ofVirginia. From 1977 to 1987, Mr. Burwell was an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation. His areas of specialty are environmental law, transportation law, and land use. His publications include The End of the Road—A Citizen's Guide to Transportation Problem Solving and A Citizen's Guide to Clean Air and Transportation. He served on TRB's Steering Committee for the Conference on Transportation, Urban Form, and the Environment and is currently a member of TRB's Executive Committee and the Committee on Environmental Issues in Transportation Law. Raymond F. Decker is President and CEO of University Science Partners, a company that identifies new technologies and develops new companies for transferring technology into practical application. Dr. Decker has a bachelor's, master's, and doctorate from the University of Michigan. He began his career as an assistant metallurgist in the Engineering Research Institute at the University of Michigan. He also worked as a research met- allurgist with Alloy Studies and Development and in several research posi- tions with Paul D. Merica Research Labs. In 1976 he became Vice President for Corporate Technology and Diversification for INCO, Ltd. He has also served as Vice President for Research and Corporate Relations of Michigan Technological University and CEO of Advanced Mineral Technologies. Dr. Decker was a member of the SHRP Executive Committee and co-chair of the TRB SHRP Committee. He is a fellow with the American Society of Metallurgists, American Institute of Chemists, American Institute of Mining, and other professional societies. He is also a member of the National Academy of Engineering. James N. Den.n is Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. He has a bachelor's degree from the University of Minnesota. From 1972 to 1991, he was President of the Minnesota Trucking Association, headquartered in St. Paul. He also held manage- ment positions at Honeywell Corporation and Northwestern Bell. Mr. Denn currently serves on the Board ofAASHTO and chairs the AASHTO Committee on Aviation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the Center for Transportation Studies of the University of Minnesota and of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, a Director of the

Study Committee Biographical Information 107 Minnesota Safety Council, and co-chair of the Minnesota Guidestar (Intelligent Transportation Systems) Executive Committee. John W. Fisher is the Joseph T. Stuart Professor of Civil Engineering at Lehigh University. Dr. Fisher received a bachelor's degree in civil engi- neering from Washington University and a master's and doctorate in civil engineering from Lehigh University. as expertise is structural engineer- ing, specializing in structural connections and fatigue. He joined the fac- ulty of Lehigh in 1964 and became Professor of Civil Engineering in 1969. He served as Associate Director of the Fritz Engineering Laboratory from 1971 to 1985. In 1986 he founded and became Director of the National Science Foundation's Engineering Research Center for Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems at Lehigh University. He was Chairman of TRB's Committee on Steel Bridges from 1974 to 1980. He is currently a member of the Research Council on Structural Joints, American Railway Engineering Association's Committee on Steel Structures, and American Institute of Steel Construction Specification Committee. He has received many honors and awards, including the ASCE Ernst E. Howard award for outstanding contributions to structural engi- neering and election as an honorary member of ASCE. Dr. Fisher is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. Delon Hampton is a consulting engineer and President of Delon Hampton & Associates. Dr. Hampton has a bachelor's degree in civil engi- neering from the University of Illinois and a master's degree and doctor- ate in civil engineering from Purdue University. He began his career as Assistant Professor of Engineering at Kansas State University, from 1961 to 1964. He was an Associate Research Engineer at the Eric H. Wang Civil Engineering Research Facility from 1962 to 1963. From 1967 to 1968, he was Senior Research Engineer at ITT Research Institute. Before start- ing his own consulting firm, he was President of Gnaedinger, Baker, Hampton, and Associates from 1972 to 1974. Concurrent with his con- sulting work, he was Professor of Civil Engineering at Howard University from 1968 to 1985. He has served on the TRB Committee on Tunnels and Underground Structures and the Study Committee for Transportation Professional Needs and is a member of the Panel for Peer Review of Program Plans, University Transportation Centers Program. Dr. Hampton currently serves on the Oversight and Project Selection Committee of TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program.

108 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIoNs Thomas F. Humphrey is Lecturer and Principal Engineer at the Center for Transportation Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and a master's degree in civil engineering from the University of Massachusetts. Before joining the faculty of MIT, Mr. Humphrey was Director of Planning and Programming for the Massa- chusetts Department of Public Works. In his current position, he is respon- sible for the development of research, education, and technology transfer programs that are concerned with urban, regional, and state transporta- tion issues. At MIT he is also Director of the New England (Region 1) University Transportation Center. He initiated and was the Program Coordinator for the New England Transportation Consortium. He was also instrumental in establishing the New England Electronic Toll and Traffic Management Group, which includes all the New England Toll Agencies. He is a registered Professional Engineer, active in TRB (currently Chairman of the Group 1 Council) and various AASHTO committee activ- ities and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Lester P. Lamm has served as President of the Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility since 1986. Previously, Mr. Lamm served for 31 years with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), becoming Executive Director in 1973 and Deputy Administrator in 1982. He also serves as President of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America) and is a member of the Board of Governors of the International Public Works Federation, a Director of the International Road Federation, a Director of the National Commission Against Drunk Driving, and a member of the Advisory Board of the Northwestern University Traffic Institute. He was previously on TRE's Executive Committee, its Committee for the Strategic Transportation Research Study on Highway Safety, and the Executive Committee of SHRP. He has received the U.S. Department of Transportation's Secretary's Gold Medal, the Distinguished Federal Executive Award, and AASHTO's Man-of-the- Year Award. He has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Norwich University and serves on the university's Board of Trustees. Charles A. Machemehi Jr. received bachelor's and master's degrees in civil engineering from the University of Texas. He is Vice President of Marketing and Business Development at Vulcan Materials Company. After serving in the military, Mr. Machemehl began his career as an engineer for the Portland Cement Association from 1964 to 1968. Rejoined Vulcan Materials in 1968

Study Committee Biographical Information 109 and became Assistant Vice President of Sales in 1971; he was Sales Manager for the state of Georgia from 1972 to 1980. In his current position, he is responsible for marketing and research and development at Vulcan Materials. He is past Chairman of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association and a member of its Board of Directors and several of its com- mittees. He is also past Chairman ofASCE's Highway Technical Committee, Vice Chairman of the Materials Application Committee, a member of the Highway Division Executive Committee, and a member of the Civil Engineenng Research Foundation's Executive Committee. He is a Trustee of both the National Stone Association's Aggregate Research Center Foundation and the National Asphalt Pavement Association's Education Foundation, and he is on the Board of Directors of both the National Aggregates Association and the American Concrete Pavement Association. Mr. Machemehl has written many articles on the performance of concrete and aggregates. He is a registered Professional Engineer in several states as well as a registered Surveyor. He retired from the Alabama Air National Guard as a Brigadier General. Ray D. Pethtel is University Transportation Fellow at the Virginia Polytechnic Tnstitute and State University. He served as Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation and Chairman of the Commonwealth Transportation Board from 1986 to 1990, and as Commissioner and Vice Chairman from 1991 to 1994. He holds a mas- ter's degree in public administration from Pennsylvania State University. From 1974 to 1986, he was director of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission of Virginia. He has published many articles on leg- islative oversight and program evaluation. He was a founding member of the Legislative Program Evaluation Section of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and served two terms as its Chairman. He was elected to the NCSL Executive Committee for three terms. Mr. Pethtel has taught at Virginia Commonwealth University and is former Chairman of the Alumni Advisory Committee of the Institute of Public Administration of Pennsylvania State University; in 1991 he was named an Alumni Fellow by the Board of Trustees at Penn State. He is a past mem- ber of the TRB Executive Committee. S. Edwin Rowe, currently a transportation consultant, recently retired as General Manager of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, where he began his career in 1956. He received a bachelor's degree from the University of Southern California and a master's degree from the University

110 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECrION5 of California at Los Angeles in 1969. His achievements include planning and implementing the Olympic Games Transportation Program for Los Angeles and directing the design and development of the city's computer-controlled traffic signal system, which received an award for innovation from the Ford Foundation and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He has served as a member of the Board of Directors of ITS America and on the Advanced Traffic Management Systems Committee. He is Vice Chairman of the ITE Intelligent Transportation Systems Council and has served on other ITE committees. Mr. Rowe is currently a member of TRB 's Traffic Signal Systems Committee and Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems Committee and has served on the Highway Capacity and Quality of Service Committee as well as several National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) panels on traffic engineering problems. He is also designated as a U.S. Expert to the International Standards Organization TC204 Working Group on Integrated Transport Information, Management, and Control. He has published many articles on traffic management and inteffigent vehicle-highway systems and was the 1989 recipient of ITE's Theodore Matson Memorial Award for outstanding contributions to the advancement of traffic engineenng. Patricia F. Wailer is Director of the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute. She holds appointments in the Department of Psychology, School of Public Health, and School of Medicine. Before join- ing the faculty of the University of Michigan, Dr. Wailer was Director of the Injury Prevention Center at the University of North Carolina and Associate Director for Driver Studies at the Highway Safety Research Institute. Concurrent with her administrative positions, she was a Research Professor at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health. She is former President of the American Association of Automotive Medicine and has served on the National Highway Traffic Safety Advisory Committee. She has been active on TRB committees, including the Committee on Planning and Administration of Transportation Safety; Committee on Motor Vehicle Size and Weight; and Committee on Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Transportation; she has also chaired the Group 3 and Group 5 councils. She is a member of the Executive Committee of ITS America and serves on the editorial board of the Journal for Safety Research. Dr. Wailer received bachelor's and mas- ter's degrees from the University of Miami and a doctorate from the University of North Carolina.

Study Committee Biographictrl Information 111 Richard P. Weaver has served for 41/2 years as Deputy Director and Chief Engineer for the California Department of Transportation, where he has worked for 32 years. During his career he has been District Traffic Operations Engineer for District 11, in San Diego, and Deputy District Director in Charge of the Tax Initiative Program. He has also been the Office Engineer in the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Branch and was the State Representative to the first light rail project in San Diego. Before becoming Chief Engineer, he served as District Engineer for District 6, in Fresno. In his current position, he manages the Project Development, Construction, Right-of-Way, Structures, Local Programs, and Project Management activities. Mr. Weaver holds a bachelor's degree in civil engi- neering from Sacramento State University and a master's degree in public administration from San Diego State University. Franklin E. White is CEO of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. He has a bachelor's degree in accounting and economics from the City College of New York and a bachelor of laws degree from Columbia University. Previously, Mr. White was the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Transportation and the Virginia Secretary of Transportation and Public Safety. He began his career as an attorney with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and with the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. Mr. White was Director of the New York State Division of the Budget and was Associate Director for Justice on the Domestic Policy Staff of the White House from 1978 to 1981. He has also served as General Counsel to the New York City Commission on Human Rights and to the New York City Human Resources Administration. Clyde E. Woodle is Executive Director of the Trucking Research Institute, an affiliate organization of the American Trucking Associations Foundation. He has a bachelor's degree from the U.S. Military Academy and a master's degree in civil engineering from the University of Wash- ington. Mr. Woodle served as a staff member for the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives, from 1973 to 1987. Before that he was in the U.S. Army and worked for FHWA. He has also served on the TRB Subcommittee on Policy Review, NCHRP Project Panel G7-12, Transportation Alternatives Group, and The Road Gang.

112 HIGHWAY RESEARCH: CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Chancy V. Wootan is Director Emeritus of the Texas Transportation Institute (TITI), having been Director from 1976 to 1993. He received his bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees from Texas A&M University. He headed TflTI's Transportation Economics and Planning Division at Texas A&M University from 1961 to 1974 and served as Associate Director and Research Economist from 1965 to 1976. Long active in TRB activities, Dr. Wootan is a former chairman of the Executive Committee and has served on the Subcommittee on Planning and Policy Review. He is also past Chairman of the Division A Council. He chaired the TRB Study Committee To Identify Measures That May Improve the Safety of School Bus Transportation. He currently chairs the NCHRP Project Panel on Strategic Plan for the NCHRP.

The Transportation Research Board is a unit of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board's purpose is to stimulate research concerning the nature and performance of trans- portation systems, to disseminate the information produced by the research, and to encour- age the application of appropriate research findings. The Board's program is carried out by mbrc than 330 committees, task forces, and panels composed of more than 3,900 adminis- trators, engineers, social scientists, attorneys, educators, and others concerned with trans- portation; they serve without compensation. The program is supported by state transportation and highway departments, the modal administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of dis- tinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the further- ance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandatçthat requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsi- bility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's pur- pose of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accor- dance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engi- neering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

a a U C ISBN 0-309-06054-0 0 National Academy Press C