Summary Report: Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program (F-SHRP) (2003)

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.

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N R E S E A R C H B O A R D WASHINGTON, D.C. 2003 www.TRB.org NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 510 Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration SUMMARY REPORT Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program ANN M. BRACH Content Editor Transportation Research Board SUBJECT AREAS Planning and Administration • Energy and Environment • Highway and Facility Design • Highway Operations, Capacity, and Traffic Control • Safety and Human Performance

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research Cover photographs from FHWA program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Note: The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 510 Project 20-58 FY 2000 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 0-309-08777-5 Library of Congress Control Number 2003114094 © 2003 Transportation Research Board Price $20.00 NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal 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 Acad- emy 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 achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf 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 responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg 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 purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, 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 engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board’s mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage more than 4,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 510 ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Manager, NCHRP ANN M. BRACH, Senior Program Officer EILEEN P. DELANEY, Managing Editor OVERSIGHT PANEL Allen Biehler, Pennsylvania DOT, Chair Joel D. Anderson, California Trucking Association Michael W. Behrens, Texas DOT David Burwell, Prague Institute for Global Urban Development E. Dean Carlson, Carlson Associates Frank L. Danchetz, Georgia DOT Brent Felker, California DOT John C. Horsley, AASHTO, ex officio Andrew T. Horosko, Manitoba Transportation & Government Services David L. Huft, South Dakota DOT Susan Martinovich, Nevada DOT John Mason, Science Applications International Corp. Mary E. Peters, FHWA, ex officio Jeffrey W. Runge, NHTSA, ex officio H. Gerard Schwartz, Jr., Sverdrup Civil, Inc. Robert E. Skinner, Jr., TRB, ex officio Fred Van Kirk, West Virginia DOT C. Michael Walton, University of Texas–Austin Thomas R. Warne, Tom Warne and Assoc., LLC Paul T. Wells, New York State DOT David K. Willis, Texas A&M University Dennis Judycki, FHWA Liaison Anthony Kane, AASHTO Liaison Robert J. Reilly, TRB Liaison William H. Walsh, NHTSA Liaison TRB Staff Ann M. Brach Keaven Freeman Renewal Technical Panel Mary Lou Ralls, Texas DOT, Chair Stuart D. Anderson, Texas A&M University Scott Battles, FHWA Thomas R. Bohuslav, Texas DOT Robert Burleson, Florida Transportation Builders Assoc. Bernardo Garcia, Hillsborough County, FL C. Frank Gee, Virginia DOT (Retired) Donn E. Hancher, University of Kentucky Kevin M. Herritt, California DOT Thomas Hicks, Maryland State Highway Administration Lonnie S. Ingram, Kansas DOT Randell H. Iwasaki, California DOT David M. Johnson, Minnesota DOT Dennis LaBelle, M&T Consultants, Inc. Greg Larson, California DOT Richard Lee, New York State DOT Dov Leshchinsky, University of Delaware Samer Madanat, University of California–Berkeley Elizabeth Mayfield-Hart, Arkansas SHTD Tommy E. Nantung, Indiana DOT Patrick R. Nolan, Interstate Highway Construction, Inc. Andrzej S. Nowak, University of Michigan Michael M. Sprinkel, Virginia DOT Dan Tangherlini, District of Columbia DOT Dean Word III, Dean Word Co., Ltd. Nicholas J. Carino, NIST Liaison Neil F. Hawks, TRB Liaison Frederick Hejl, TRB Liaison Frank N. Lisle, TRB Liaison James McDonnell, AASHTO Liaison Paul Teng, FHWA Liaison NCHRP Staff Timothy G. Hess Takiyah K. Daniel Contracting Agency: Iowa State University Subcontractors: Purdue University, TDC Partners Principal Investigators: Stephen J. Andrle, Thomas Cackler, Theodore Ferragut, and Rebecca McDaniel Safety Technical Panel John L. Craig, Nebraska DOR, Chair Thomas E. Bryer, Pennsylvania DOT (Retired) Demetra Collia, Bureau of Transportation Statistics Rick Collins, Texas DOT Richard Compton, NHTSA Forrest M. Council, Bellomo-McGee, Inc. Barbara DeLucia, Data Nexus, Inc. Dennis Garrett, Arizona Dept. of Public Safety David Harkey, Univ. North Carolina–Chapel Hill NCHRP PROJECT 20-58 PROJECT PANELS

Barbara Harsha, Governor’s Highway Safety Assoc. Jim Kopf, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Richard G. McGinnis, Bucknell University Christopher Monsere, Oregon DOT Edward O’Hara, Massachusetts State Police Joe Osterman, NTSB Harold R. Paul, Louisiana DOTD Terry T. Shelton, FMCSA Alison Smiley, Human Factors North, Inc. Bruce Smith, New York State DOT David L. Smith, NHTSA Arthur Victorine, Tennessee DOT Richard Wehe, California DOT Thomas M. Welch, Iowa DOT Roger A. Wentz, American Traffic Safety Services Assoc. Terecia Wilson, South Carolina DOT Dan Beal, Reliability Panel Liaison Ken Kobetsky, AASHTO Liaison Richard Pain, TRB Liaison Michael Trentacoste, FHWA Liaison Federico Vaca, Reliability Panel Liaison NCHRP Staff Charles W. Niessner Adrienne Blackwell Contracting Agency: Battelle, with Oak Ridge National Laboratory Principal Investigators: Kenneth L. Campbell and Mark Lepofsky Reliability Technical Panel John F. Conrad, Washington State DOT, Chair Nancy B. Albright, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Haitham Al-Deek, University of Central Florida John Allen, Battelle Stephen P. Austin, Cumberland Valley Volunteer Firemen’s Assoc. Malcolm Baird, Vanderbilt University Dan Beal, Automobile Club of Southern California Rebecca M. Brewster, American Transportation Research Inst. Thomas Callow, City of Phoenix John J. Collins, Mobility Technologies Harriet Cooley, Towing & Recovery Assoc. of America John Corbin, Wisconsin DOT David Helman, FHWA William J. Hoffman, FHWA Valerie Briggs Kalhammer, Booz Allen Hamilton Tim Kelly, Houston METRO Alfred H. Kosik, Texas DOT Jane Lappin, U.S. DOT Steven P. Latoski, Dunn Engineering Assoc. Jeffrey A. Lindley, FHWA Jim McKenzie, Metroplan Ron Miner, TRW–Public Safety and Transportation William Peterson, Plano Fire Department Ashish Sen, Bureau of Transportation Statistics Anne H. Tsang, ITS America Federico Vaca, Univ. California–Irvine Gamunu Wijetunge, NHTSA Richard Y. Woo, Maryland State Highway Administration Albert Yee, California DOT Michael J. Zezeski, Maryland State Highway Administration David S. Ekern, AASHTO Liaison Toni Wilbur, FHWA Liaison Richard A. Cunard, TRB Liaison NCHRP Staff B. Ray Derr Adrienne Blackwell Contracting Agency: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Subcontractors: Texas Transportation Institute; Washington State Transportation Center; Dowling Assoc. Principal Investigators: Mark Hallenbeck, Richard A. Margiotta, and Timothy Lomax Capacity Technical Panel Neil J. Pedersen, Maryland State Highway Administration, Chair James E. Ballinger, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Kenneth C. Bohuslav, Texas DOT James F. Byrnes, Connecticut DOT Wayne D. Cottrell, University of Utah Carol Cutshall, Wisconsin DOT (Retired) Janet D’Ignazio, North Carolina State University Larry R. Goode, Wilbur Smith Associates Charles E. Howard, Jr., Washington State DOT Larry M. King, Pennsylvania DOT Wayne W. Kober, Wayne W. Kober, Inc. Kenneth J. Leonard, Wisconsin DOT Ysela Llort, Florida DOT Deron Lovaas, Natural Resources Defense Council C. Ian MacGillivray, Iowa DOT (Retired) Gary McVoy, New York State DOT Michael D. Meyer, Georgia Institute of Technology Debbie A. Niemeier, Univ. of California–Davis Luisa Paiewonsky, Massachusetts Highway Dept. Wayne Parrish, Neel-Schaffer, Inc. Mary Kay Santore, U.S. EPA Brian J. Smith, California DOT Wesley C. Stephen, Missouri DOT Les Sterman, East-West Gateway Coordinating Council

Mary Lynn Tischer, Commonwealth of Virginia Gary Winters, California DOT Leo Penne, AASHTO Liaison Debra Elston, FHWA Liaison Kimberly Fisher, TRB Liaison Ron Fisher, FTA Liaison NCHRP Staff Christopher J. Hedges Sarah Shaw Tatoun Contracting Agency: ICF, Inc. Subcontractors: Transtech Management; Dr. Martin Wachs Principal Investigator: Sergio Ostria

In June 1998, the U.S. Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This bill, which reauthorized the federal-aid highway program, called for the Transportation Research Board (TRB) “to conduct a study to determine the goals, purposes, research agenda, and projects, administrative structure, and fiscal needs for a new strategic highway research program.”2 This congressional request was prompted by the success of an earlier Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) and led to a proposal for a future Strategic Highway Research Program (F-SHRP), which is summarized in this report. This Preface provides background on the activities that preceded the work described in the remainder of the report. THE ORIGINAL STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM The first Strategic Highway Research Program was a highly successful effort by Congress, state departments of transportation (DOTs), and highway industry leaders that addressed critical needs facing the nation’s highway network at the time. The qual- ity of asphalt and the integrity and longevity of pavements, for instance, were major problems. The economic and highway safety impacts of winter storms affected almost every state. Concrete bridge decks and other bridge components were deteriorating pre- maturely for reasons that were not entirely clear. Several reports drawing attention to the deteriorating condition of America’s infrastructure were widely publicized and moved highway officials to address the problem actively. Although existing research programs addressed aspects of these problems, none was able to concentrate sufficient resources to produce implementable solutions in an accelerated time frame. A small group of leaders from highway agencies and the transportation research community began to articulate an approach to address this situation. This approach con- sisted of a highly focused, time-constrained research program aimed at critical needs PREFACE1 By Ann M. Brach Staff Officer Transportation Research Board 1 The background material in this preface is summarized from Special Report 260, Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. 2 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 105-178, Section 5112, “Study of a Future Strategic Highway Research Program.” SHRP and F-SHRP: A Program Model to Address Evolving Needs SHRP (1987–1991) • Driven by agency costs and operations • Focused on engineering disciplines • Outcomes include materials, equipment, specifications, methods F-SHRP (2003–2008, proposed) • Driven by customer costs and expectations • Includes social science and other disciplines • Outcomes also address operations, safety, behavior, institutional issues

recognized by those within the highway industry, particularly the state DOTs. This approach was designed to complement existing research programs by utilizing additional funding over a prescribed time frame. Other programs would continue to pursue their broad mission-oriented agendas, coordinating with the new program as appropriate. The new program was described in TRB Special Report 202: America’s Highways: Accelerating the Search for Innovation (TRB, 1984), also known as the Strategic Transportation Research Study or the STRS (“Stars”) report. A steering committee of highway leaders directed the STRS work. The committee focused on developing a national research program aimed at high priorities that were not being adequately addressed by existing programs. The committee chose six research areas in which focused, accelerated, results-oriented research promised significant benefits: perfor- mance of asphalt pavements; long-term performance of various pavement types; tech- nologies and management approaches for highway maintenance; protection of concrete bridge components from deterioration; better performing concrete for pavements and structures; and improved snow and ice control. The STRS report provided a vision of a focused, management-driven, time- constrained research program and a general outline of what needed to be done in each of the above six research areas. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided funds to translate this vision and outline into the detailed plans required to execute a research program. In 1987, Congress passed the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Act, which authorized SHRP. The program was funded over five years through a 0.25% takedown of federal-aid highway funds. Overall guidance for SHRP was provided by an executive committee. The six major research areas were condensed to four, and an advisory committee was formed for each. Exhibits 1 and 2 provide examples of prod- ucts and benefits from SHRP. viii Preface Exhibit 1. Selected Products and Benefits of SHRP Other SHRP products include manuals and guidelines for pavement repairs that are durable and cost-effective; evaluation and development of improved concrete materials for bridges and pavements; and work zone safety products to help protect both workers and motorists. SHRP Product Superpave® is an asphalt pavement design system that allows pavement designers to tailor asphalt mixes to spe- cific traffic loads and climates, thus producing pavements that are more durable and less likely to rut in extremely hot weather or to crack in extremely cold weather. Superpave consists of three elements: a process for selecting the most appropriate asphalt binder, a laboratory procedure for opti- mizing the mix design, and tests for predicting how well the mix will perform in real-world conditions. SHRP developed an approach to winter maintenance that allows agencies to be prepared for storms and to deploy materials, crews, and equipment in appropriate amounts. The system involves a combination of anti-icing strategies (treating the pavement with chemicals before a storm to pre- vent ice from forming) and road weather information sys- tems (a network of sensors that lets the agency know pave- ment and atmospheric conditions, including temperature, rate of precipitation, and amount of chemicals remaining on the pavement from previous applications). Dollars of Benefit for Each Dollar of R&D and Implementation (Little, et al., 1997) 26–43 for agencies 72–116 for users 15–29 for agencies 62–124 for users

STUDY FOR A FUTURE STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM When Congress requested a new SHRP study in 1998, TRB established the Com- mittee for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program, which was composed of lead- ers from the highway community. (See Exhibit 3 for committee members.) After two and one-half years of study and outreach to the highway community, the F-SHRP com- mittee published TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life. Special Report 260 recommended a Future Strategic Highway Research Program encompassing the following four strate- gic focus areas: • Renewal: Accelerating the Renewal of America’s Highways • Safety: Making a Significant Improvement in Highway Safety • Reliability: Providing a Highway System with Reliable Travel Times • Capacity: Providing Highway Capacity in Support of the Nation’s Economic, Environmental, and Social Goals The F-SHRP committee also outlined the administrative characteristics of the pro- gram and recommended a funding level of $450 to $500 million dollars, provided through a 0.25% takedown of federal-aid highway funds under the next surface trans- portation authorizing legislation. INTERIM PLANNING FOR F-SHRP Special Report 260 provided a strategic direction and general outline for F-SHRP, but before the research could be carried out, much more detailed research plans would Preface ix Exhibit 2. Selected SHRP Benefits Reported by States • South Carolina found that the spray-injection pothole repair method evaluated by SHRP takes less time, requires fewer workers, and lasts longer than the state’s traditional method. • North Carolina expects the crack-sealing method endorsed by SHRP to increase the life of crack seals by 40%—from 5 to 7 years. • Alaska saves $1,400 per bridge using a new test for evaluating chloride content. In a year and one-half, this test saved the state $95,000. • Idaho gets rapid results from a new test designed to detect alkali–silica reactivity, which causes severe cracking in concrete, at about one-tenth the cost of old tests. • Oregon has preserved three landmark bridges and saved $50 million using cathodic protection technology evaluated by SHRP. • Electrochemical chloride extraction, another test evaluated by SHRP, has increased the lives of two Virginia bridges by 12 to 15 years at a lower cost and with less disruption as compared with replacement or rehabilitation. A SHRP- developed specification for high-performance concrete encouraged the use of this material on bridges, allowing them to be built lighter and stronger. • Nevada expects its expanding road weather information system (RWIS) network to provide motorists and shippers with safer, more reliable travel conditions; save $7 million in labor, materials, and other costs during the next 25 years; and protect the environment by reducing the amount of chemicals and abrasives used. • In Colorado, an anti-icing/RWIS strategy is helping to improve air quality by reducing the use of sand and other abrasives, which are responsible for about 20% of Denver’s persistent winter air quality problems. SOURCE: RoadSavers website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/winter/roadsvr/casehome.htm.

have to be developed. In December 2001, the AASHTO Board of Directors passed a resolution supporting F-SHRP and authorizing an NCHRP project to develop these plans. FHWA matched the NCHRP funds. Work began on the interim planning phase of F-SHRP in January 2002. The interim work was carried out as four studies—one for each research area— and included tasks such as the following: • Perform in-depth search of relevant efforts in the United States and abroad. • Develop detailed “roadmaps” of the research projects necessary to achieve the objectives identified by the F-SHRP report for each topic area. • Obtain input on concepts, criteria, and general content of the research design from stakeholders and experts. • Identify any particular issues, problems, or opportunities related to the proposed research and recommend actions to be taken. Five panels provided leadership and technical guidance for the interim work. The leadership guidance for the overall program was provided by an oversight panel of highway industry leaders.3 They were responsible for the overall direction of the pro- gram, development of an administrative structure for F-SHRP, and decisions about overall funding and coordination matters. Technical guidance was provided in each research topic area by a technical panel with the appropriate mix of technical expertise. The development of the research plans was carried out by competitively selected, inter- disciplinary contractor teams. The four technical panels provided oversight and guid- ance to the contractor teams throughout the duration of the interim work, with periodic reports to the oversight panel. The members of all five panels, as well as liaisons, prin- cipal investigators, and staff, are listed at the beginning of this report. x Preface 3 The members of this panel also formed the AASHTO F-SHRP Task Force. Exhibit 3. Committee on a Study for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program C. Michael Walton, Chair, The University of Texas at Austin Bradley L. Mallory, Vice Chair, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Joel D. Anderson, California Trucking Association E. Dean Carlson, Kansas Department of Transportation Frank L. Danchetz, Georgia Department of Transportation Henry E. Dittmar, Great American Station Foundation Francis B. Francois, Bowie, Maryland David R. Gehr, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. Susan Martinovich, Nevada Department of Transportation Herbert H. Richardson, Texas Transportation Institute Henry G. Schwartz, Jr., Sverdrup Civil, Inc. Thomas R. Warne, Tom Warne and Associates David K. Willis, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety John Horsley, Liaison, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) David L. Huft, Liaison, South Dakota Department of Transportation; AASHTO Research Advisory Committee Dennis C. Judycki, Liaison, Federal Highway Administration Anthony R. Kane, Liaison, AASHTO Ann M. Brach, Study Director, Transportation Research Board

CONTENTS AND AUTHORSHIP OF THIS REPORT This report was prepared under the direction of the oversight panel for NCHRP Project 20–58, Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program, which was responsible for review and approval of its contents. Chapter 1 provides an overview of F-SHRP. Its content, as well as the background material in the Preface, is summarized from TRB Special Report 260. Chapters 2 through 5 describe each of F-SHRP’s four strategic focus areas. These chapters were summarized by the F-SHRP contractors from the reports they prepared for the four F-SHRP technical panels responsible for guiding and reviewing the contractors’ work. Chapter 6 was prepared by Ann M. Brach of TRB staff to frame some of the adminis- trative and implementation issues to be addressed if F-SHRP is funded. The contents of Chapter 6 do not reflect decisions of the project panels involved in NCHRP Project 20–58. The final disposition of these matters will be left to whatever governing struc- ture is put in place if F-SHRP is authorized. Appendices A through D provide brief descriptions of each research project taken from the contractor reports. The full texts of the research plans (which total more than 700 pages) are available on TRB’s web- site at www.trb.org. REFERENCES Little, D.N., Memmott, J., McFarland, F., Goff, Z., Smith, R., Wootan, C.V., Zollinger, D., Tang, T., and Epps, J. Economic Benefits of SHRP Research. Research Report 596–1F. Texas Transporta- tion Institute, College Station, Texas, January 1997. RoadSavers Series. Publications No. FHWA-SA-98-012, -013, -014, -015, and -016. Federal High- way Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, December 1997. Special Report 202: America’s Highways: Accelerating the Search for Innovation, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1984. Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. Preface xi

1-1 CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF F-SHRP Overarching Theme, 1-2 Vision, 1-2 Strategic Focus Areas, 1-2 Overall Philosophy, 1-2 Systems Approach, 1-3 Nontraditional Research Areas, 1-4 Interdependence of Highway Research and Technology Programs, 1-5 Operational Orientation of F-SHRP: A Point of Integration, 1-6 Funding Requirements and Mechanism, 1-7 F-SHRP Topics and Projects, 1-7 References, 1-11 2-1 CHAPTER 2 RENEWAL—ACCELERATING THE RENEWAL OF AMERICA’S HIGHWAYS Statement of the Problem, 2-1 F-SHRP Renewal Research, 2-2 Barriers and Tactics to Overcome Them, 2-3 Rapid Approaches, 2-3 Minimize Disruption, 2-6 Produce Long-Lived Facilities, 2-7 Relationship to Other Research Programs, 2-7 References, 2-8 3-1 CHAPTER 3 SAFETY—MAKING A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN HIGHWAY SAFETY Statement of the Problem, 3-1 F-SHRP Safety Research, 3-2 Road Departure Collisions, 3-2 Intersection Collisions, 3-3 Research Methods, 3-3 Crash Surrogates, 3-3 Vehicle-Based Instrumentation, 3-4 Site-Based Instrumentation, 3-4 Retrospective Countermeasure Evaluation, 3-5 Framework for F-SHRP Safety Research, 3-5 Critical Issues, 3-6 Relationship to Other Research Programs, 3-7 References, 3-8 4-1 CHAPTER 4 RELIABILITY—PROVIDING A HIGHWAY SYSTEM WITH RELIABLE TRAVEL TIMES Statement of the Problem, 4-1 Definition of Travel Time Reliability, 4-1 Sources of Unreliable Travel Times (Travel Time Variability), 4-1 F-SHRP Reliability Research, 4-3 Framework for F-SHRP Reliability Research, 4-4 Relationship to Other Research Programs, 4-7 References, 4-8 5-1 CHAPTER 5 CAPACITY—PROVIDING HIGHWAY CAPACITY IN SUPPORT OF THE NATION’S ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL GOALS Statement of the Problem, 5-1 Conceptual Framework for Transportation Decision Making, 5-2 F-SHRP Capacity Research, 5-4 Relationships Among Topics and Projects, 5-7 Relationship to Other Research Programs, 5-8 6-1 CHAPTER 6 ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION Administration, 6-1 Criteria for Administrative Structure, 6-1 Recommended Administrative Home for F-SHRP, 6-2 CONTENTS

Governance Structure, 6-2 Administrative Issues to Be Addressed, 6-2 Implementation, 6-4 Background: SHRP Implementation, 6-4 Activities Associated with Implementation, 6-5 Consideration of Implementation in the F-SHRP Report, 6-5 Implementation Activities in the Research Plans, 6-6 Overall Approach to F-SHRP Implementation, 6-6 A-1 APPENDIX A Brief Descriptions of Renewal Projects B-1 APPENDIX B Brief Descriptions of Safety Projects C-1 APPENDIX C Brief Descriptions of Reliability Projects D-1 APPENDIX D Brief Descriptions of Capacity Projects