Transportation Knowledge Networks: A Management Strategy for the 21st Century -- Special Report 284 (2006)

One of the main impediments to a more robust information management system for the transportation sector is a lack of secure and sustained funding. This chapter begins by describing the funding characteristics necessary to support the proposed national system of transportation knowledge networks (TKNs) and a coordinating structure. Potential funding sources are then described, and the committee’s proposed funding strategy is presented. The chapter ends with a brief section on next steps.

The committee’s review of other national libraries and networks of information service providers revealed several characteristics of their funding that appear to contribute to their successful operation:

• Continuity of funding: Sustained funding is probably the single most important characteristic for successful provision of information services. Most if not all information services (e.g., bibliographic databases, cataloguing, digitization) require continuous funding to ensure that users will receive timely, complete, and up-to-date information. Resources are also needed to keep information professionals on the cutting edge of user needs and technology developments. The stop-and-start funding of the National Transportation Library (NTL) is a good example of the problems encountered when budgets are insecure. NTL started several initiatives in its first years of operation, but without a reliable budget, support for many of these activities, such as expansion of the Transportation Libraries Catalog and network development, has languished. Many other components of a transportation information management system—the Transportation Research

Information Services (TRIS) database, the Transportation Thesaurus, cataloguing and collection development—are handled by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and through informal arrangements among transportation librarians from key academic and state department of transportation (DOT) libraries, with no systematic means of supporting an umbrella coordinating function or funding system improvements.

• Breadth of funding: Continuity of funding is best ensured by a broad range of support rather than dependence on a single revenue source. Federal funds, for example, are critical to the operation of national libraries within federal agencies. Nevertheless, as administrations and funding priorities change, certain library operations, such as network development, may be at risk. This was the case with NTL and the Midwest Transportation Knowledge Network (MTKN). MTKN was a successful pilot project, but because of budget cutbacks, NTL has not been able to build on this success to develop similar networks in other regions.

• Stakeholder buy-in: Ownership of a transportation information management system by the major stakeholders is critical to successful operation, and such ownership can best be guaranteed through financial support. Federal funds are commonly used to leverage state, local, and even private support to finance a wide range of transportation programs; transportation information management should be no different. Matching requirements are a powerful tool to ensure that users value the services provided and participate actively in planning how those services can best meet mission-critical needs. Programs with matching requirements are also attractive to congressional sponsors and federal agencies because services and activities are shared responsibilities.

Information is what economists call a public good, which has the property that it is often underprovided.¹ Public goods exhibit the free-rider problem; that is, many of those who benefit from the good may not pay

for that benefit. This often results in failure to provide an optimal amount of the good, an outcome that may be remedied by government intervention and provision of the good. At this point, the issue becomes how much of the good to produce and how to allocate the costs involved.

A broad range of funding sources should be tapped to support a fully functioning information management system for the transportation sector (see Table 4-1). The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), which is responsible for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and NTL, is currently funded from Title V funds for Research, Technology, and Education in the surface transportation legislation. The coordinating structure, which the committee recommends be located within RITA (see Chapter 3) and which will serve a national purpose, could also be funded from this source. The committee recognizes that this funding source could be problematic given reductions in current funding for BTS, the major component of RITA’s budget. Thus, the committee’s recommendations are focused on the next reauthorization of the

surface transportation legislation, although movement toward funding the information management system recommended in this report could begin much sooner by drawing on other funding sources.²

Federal funds alone will not suffice to achieve the nationwide transportation information management system envisioned by the committee, particularly a robust system of transportation information providers organized in networks across the country. Federal funds can help support network development, but core funding from other major stakeholder groups, such as state DOTs and universities, is essential to ensure continuing support for the system’s operations.

The primary source of state support for research, development, and technology is State Planning and Research (SP&R) funds; library and information services are clearly an eligible activity.³ State DOTs could agree on a voluntary set-aside of SP&R funds to support the TKNs and the coordinating structure, or states could elect to pool their SP&R funds in a multiyear pooled-fund project.⁴ SP&R funds, however, may be difficult to tap; in many states, the 25 percent earmark for research, development, and technology is already stretched thin in the budgets of research directors. In some states, other state funds are used to support state DOT libraries. Those funds could also be used to support the TKNs and the coordinating structure, but they may already be spoken for.

Another alternative is to investigate the feasibility of using Title I Federal-Aid Highway grants received by each state. Information services

could be made a reimbursable expense, similar to the way in which computers and other equipment are now considered support for grant-funded engineering and construction projects, on the basis of the idea that information support is also a cost of doing business that should be recovered. Title I grants often fund large construction projects. Therefore, a small percentage add-on for information support could generate substantial revenues.

Support for continuing network operations is also needed from university libraries with major transportation collections and University Transportation Center (UTC) libraries. At present, 52 UTCs receive federal funding under Title V of the newly reauthorized surface transportation legislation, and 10 universities are funded under Title III (Public Transportation) of the same legislation. In both cases, the universities must match federal grants dollar for dollar. University grant funds could be tapped in several ways—through a voluntary set-aside of some fraction of UTC budgets, contributions by individual universities and UTCs to a multiyear pooled-fund project, dedication of a university librarian to participate actively as an information provider and manager in the network, or even levying of a small tax on each UTC research project for information support (although the latter approach could pose the administrative burden of separating funds by purpose).

Regardless of what approach is selected to provide core funding from state DOTs and universities, funding could also be sought from a broader group of stakeholders, including transit agencies, metropolitan planning agencies, large city and county governments, and the private sector, as the TKNs develop and their membership is broadened. Although many of these entities may not have libraries, they may have information centers, and even a small contribution, given the large number of organizations involved, could help defray the cost of network operations.

The committee believes that recommendations concerning specific funding sources to support the TKNs and the coordinating structure are premature and need to be formulated in a follow-on effort (see the final section of this chapter). Nevertheless, in the following section the committee proposes a strategy encompassing several general principles with regard to funding, as well as funding amounts, that in its judgment should guide the start-up and development of the new system.

The TKNs and the coordinating structure should seek broad-based funding support from multiple sources to help ensure sustained operations. For the first 3 years, however, federal grants should provide the primary support for the start-up and development of critical programs and services of the coordinating structure (see Table 4-2). Pilot grants should also be made available to start up the regional- and federal-level TKNs. Those receiving pilot grants should be required to develop metrics and examples of the cost savings and other benefits of networked information services.

Once these efforts are under way—after about 3 years—federal funds should be increased to expand the programs of the coordinating structure and support further start-up and development of the TKNs. At this point, however, federal funds for the TKNs should be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by nonfederal sources. In-kind contributions would be acceptable.

As a general rule, federal funds would be used to support national projects identified by the coordinating structure and its membership, as well as start-up and development of the TKNs, both regional and federal (see Table 4-2). They would also be used to support a small core staff at the coordinating structure, which would grow with its programs and services. Required matching funds would be used, to the extent possible, within the regions where the funds were raised to support individual TKN activities, projects, and services.

The committee recommends a federal grant program of $3 million to $5 million for the first 3 years, growing to a total program of $7.5 million to $13 million in subsequent years when federal funding for network development would be leveraged with required local matching funds. Table 4-2 provides greater detail on how the funds might be divided between the coordinating structure and the TKNs on the basis of the functions and information services identified for each in Chapter 2 (Boxes 2-2 and 2-3). For example, in the start-up years, federal grants would be used to establish the coordinating structure at RITA, build a small core staff, and provide seed funds and technical assistance for network development at the regional and federal levels. For illustrative purposes, the committee estimates that putting the coordinating structure in place would require a minimum of $1.5 million annually for staff—a director, field librarians, information

technology personnel, marketing and administrative support—travel, annual meetings, product development, supplies, and overhead. Costs could be as high as $2 million annually depending on the products and services provided. Pilot grants for development of the TKNs would probably require a minimum of $300,000 annually for each network to support local staffing, meetings and travel for network members, and cataloguing.⁵ The funding requirements could be higher in regions where transportation libraries, information services, and professional capacity are weak. In addition, the annual total would depend on the number of TKN start-ups. Thus, the committee has recommended a range of $1.5 million to $3 million annually for this activity during the start-up period (Table 4-2).

After 3 years, once the basic structures had been established, the budget would grow accordingly to fund expansion of the TKNs and the supporting services and programs of the coordinating structure. Funds for the latter would be used to underwrite individual projects with national application (e.g., information infrastructure, tool building, and products for network use) and to support professional capacity building and a program of research. Box 2-3 in Chapter 2 lists the functions and services envisioned by the committee for a fully operating coordinating structure. The committee estimates that these functions could require an additional $1 million to $1.5 million in annual funding for the coordinating structure, for a funding total of $2.5 million to $3 million. Additional funds would also be required to support new networks and help expand networks established during the start-up period. Box 2-2 in Chapter 2 lists the function and services envisioned by the committee for fully operating TKNs. The committee estimates that a fully functioning TKN could cost a minimum of $500,000 annually to support such functions and services as collection coordination and development, reference services for regional users, and professional capacity building for members. The total annual funding required for the TKNs would depend, of course, on the total number of regional networks and the functions and

services each network decided to provide. On the basis of 10 regional TKNs—one in each USDOT region—and one federal-level TKN, the committee estimates a range of $5 million to $10 million to support the activities of the networks, assuming that federal funds would be matched by local contributions.

The committee recognizes that the funding levels cited here are rough approximations and should be refined in a follow-on effort. However, they do not appear to be out of line with funding for similar information services in other sectors (e.g., health and agriculture) or with the experience of NTL and MTKN.

To implement the proposed transportation information management system, the committee recommends the following next steps. First, a followon project should be funded through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program to develop a business plan, including details of proposed functions and funding for both the TKNs and the coordinating structure. This effort should allow sufficient time to build stakeholder support and approach potential funders and stakeholders (e.g., USDOT, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the Council of University Transportation Centers, the American Public Transit Association, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations) for the necessary commitments to ensure adequate funding. Second, USDOT and RITA administrators should determine which office should manage the coordinating structure, and it should be established expeditiously and provided a budget in the amount recommended by the committee. Third, the legislation for the Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics should be amended as soon as possible to broaden its membership, focus, and reporting functions to provide a strong governance body for the coordinating structure.

Even if all these recommended next steps are taken, the committee believes the single most important factor in the success of the proposed transportation information management system will be leadership. In looking to the future, the committee hopes that the leadership of the

community of librarians and information professionals will step forward, as they have in the past, to see that a long-overdue institutional structure and sustained funding are put in place to serve the information needs of the transportation sector well into the 21st century.

Rosen, H. S. 2005. Public Finance, 7th ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston, Mass.