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.

Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program 6-1 CHAPTER 6 ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION The material in this chapter was prepared by Ann M. Brach of TRB staff to frame some of the administrative and implementation issues to be addressed if F-SHRP is funded. The contents of the chapter 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. ADMINISTRATION The administrative requirements of F-SHRP are predicated on the special characteristics of the research program. These characteristics can be summarized as follows: • F-SHRP is to be a time-constrained, accelerated program; • Research must be coordinated and integrated to produce implementable products; and • Efforts are aimed at producing results that go beyond existing research programs in scale, scope, and/or kind. This section summarizes the implications of these characteristics for the administration of F-SHRP. Criteria for Administrative Structure TRB Special Report 260 presents four criteria to be met by the administrative structure of F-SHRP. 1. The F-SHRP organization should possess essential quality control mechanisms. This criterion includes the use of open solicitation and selection based on merit, mecha- nisms for avoiding biases and balancing interests and perspectives, and appropriate review procedures. 2. The F-SHRP organization should be competent to carry out a large contract research program. This criterion includes experience in managing such a program, appropri- ate administrative and contract support functions, ability to attract and retain talented staff and other resources, and central administration with distributed conduct of research. 3. The F-SHRP organization should have focused core staff and secure funding over the program’s time frame. This criterion includes a core staff of appropriate size plus the possibility of additional loaned staff and a reasonably predictable budget that can be managed on a multi-year, program basis. 4. The F-SHRP organization should have the flexibility to institute stakeholder gover- nance mechanisms. This criterion includes the use of stakeholder guidance for both the governance of the overall program and for technical guidance at the subprogram level.

6-2 Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program Recommended Administrative Home for F-SHRP At its December 12, 2002, meeting, the AASHTO F-SHRP Task Force voted to recom- mend that F-SHRP be housed at the National Research Council (NRC), as was its prede- cessor, SHRP. NRC (through TRB) is experienced in managing a large contract research program (NCHRP) and has the required administrative and contracting support functions. It has the ability to attract talented staff and other resources. NRC is experienced with con- vening diverse stakeholder groups and balancing various perspectives and interests. It offers the advantage of a reputation for bringing together a broad array of transportation stake- holders in an open and unbiased forum while utilizing access to experts in other fields. Stakeholder governance and external peer review are part of its normal operating procedures. Among existing private-sector organizations, NRC, through TRB, is a well-known and trusted organization in the transportation community. In contrast to government agencies, NRC is much less constrained in certain management practices. As shown in the following examples, NRC is able to • More quickly increase the size of its staff to support the program and similarly readjust staff size when the program draws to a close; • Provide greater flexibility and speed in negotiating and awarding contracts; • Fully implement merit-based selection processes; and • Establish stakeholder governance mechanisms using processes based on those employed in TRB’s Cooperative Research Programs and similar to the processes used for typi- cal NRC committees. Governance Structure The committee structure for F-SHRP is expected to be similar to the structure used in SHRP. That is, a high-level or executive committee would be responsible for the overall program, including matters such as major program modifications, program budget, overall program policies, technical panel membership and oversight, and contract awards. Techni- cal panels would oversee major parts of the program, presumably the four strategic focus areas, and handle matters such as preparation of requests for proposals, proposal review and recommendations for contractor selection, oversight and evaluation of technical program progress, report review, as well as outreach, dissemination, and implementation for their program area. SHRP also used a third level of panels, called expert task groups, to assist with peer review of proposals and reports. F-SHRP technical panels may wish to enlist the assistance of such additional groups in carrying out their responsibilities. Administrative Issues to Be Addressed The details of F-SHRP administration have yet to be determined. This section outlines some of the major issues to be addressed in this area. Human resources. The success of F-SHRP will depend on the involvement of hundreds of volunteer stakeholders; nevertheless, there are increasing demands on everyone’s time. Therefore, F-SHRP will need to develop stakeholder involvement processes that are both effective and efficient. Some F-SHRP projects will require the involvement of new groups of stakeholders. It will be necessary to identify critical nontraditional stakeholders early in the program and start building relationships with them so that they will be interested in serv- ing on F-SHRP panels. The research calls for over 200 person-years per year of research talent, in addition to what is needed for all of the ongoing research programs. Some new talent (in the social sciences, for example) will be needed from other fields. A dedicated professional staff will be required to run F-SHRP, and they will possibly require the help of loaned staff from other organizations.

Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program 6-3 Contracting. Several special issues relate to contracting for F-SHRP. The proposed Safety research has never been carried out at such a large scale. Some projects in other areas of F-SHRP require a range of research disciplines that may not be easily found in one institu- tion. In several focus areas the plans call for research more suited to the social sciences, such as organizational behavior, psychology, and economics. While there are some researchers who apply these disciplines to transportation issues, there may be some areas—organizational behavior, in particular—where a whole new group of researchers will need to be attracted to this field. For these reasons, it may be necessary to consider alternative approaches to con- tracting for some of the research. For example, incentives may be needed to encourage tra- ditional research institutions to seek out and involve nontraditional expertise. Public–private, academic–private, academic–academic, and other partnership combinations may be needed for high-quality and effective results. In addition, oversight and coordination contractors, such as SHRP employed in two areas, may be advisable for pulling together the results of other contractors’ work within a strategic focus area. Organizational structure. Although SHRP was an NRC unit separate from TRB, it seems likely that F-SHRP will be administered within TRB. Nevertheless, the size, visibility, and accelerated time frame of F-SHRP suggest that the program should be carried out with sig- nificant independence from other TRB programs. The establishment of an F-SHRP execu- tive committee, as well as a dedicated F-SHRP director and staff, should provide the nec- essary autonomy even while some support functions may be furnished through TRB offices that already provide these services. Coordination. F-SHRP will have two major coordination challenges: coordinating with other research programs and coordinating across its own research programs. Other pro- grams with which F-SHRP may need to coordinate include federal, state, academic, private- sector, and international highway research programs. Coordination could be handled by having liaisons from other programs serve on F-SHRP panels or through the establishment of F-SHRP coordinator positions (as SHRP did with state DOTs and international highway research laboratories). There are a number of areas in which projects should be coordinated across strategic focus areas within F-SHRP. 1. Data Sharing. Some projects may be able to use the same databases for research; for example, Reliability and Safety projects may both need traffic volume data. In some cases, it may be necessary to supplement data collection planned in one project so that the needs of another project can be met. For example, data concerning certain driver behaviors relevant to Reliability may be added to the Safety data collection protocol. 2. Joint Projects Between Reliability and Capacity. The F-SHRP Capacity program has several projects that may be conducted jointly with the Reliability program. A pre- liminary list of joint projects between the Reliability and Capacity focus areas is shown in Table 6–1. 3. Renewal Projects Related to Reliability. Several of the projects under the Renewal component of F-SHRP deal with construction and management techniques that have the potential to reduce the duration and impacts of work zones. Special consideration should be given to ensuring that travel time effects are explicitly considered in the scopes of these projects. This coordination is required because work zones are a major influence on travel time reliability. The Reliability plan does not include any projects that deal specifically with work zones under the assumption that Renewal will cover the topic more comprehensively. Even where projects are not conducted jointly, it may be beneficial to share information across strategic focus areas. This type of coordination may be accomplished at the staff level, through volunteers who serve on more than one panel, or through periodic workshops that bring staff, researchers, and panel members together to discuss coordination opportunities.

Program evaluation. In addition to the peer review that will be carried out by the tech- nical panels and expert task groups at the project and strategic focus area level, it may be advisable to institute a programwide evaluation process. Such a process might include a mid-course evaluation half-way through the conduct of the program, and a final evaluation toward the end of the program. The evaluations would be oriented toward the relevance and administration of the research, as well as preliminary outcomes; evaluation of implemented benefits would need to be carried out some years after the program is completed. IMPLEMENTATION Implementation is essential if research findings are to have an impact on solving critical problems or taking advantage of strategic opportunities. This section presents: (1). a sum- mary of implementation under SHRP; (2). types of activities associated with implementa- tion; (3). implementation as considered in Special Report 260; (4). a brief summary of imple- mentation activities in the research plans, and (5). an analysis of implementation to be carried out during the research stage of F-SHRP. Background: SHRP Implementation SHRP was designed to be a focused, short-term research program, performed by a special- purpose organization that would “sunset” when its mission was accomplished. SHRP fund- ing was focused on research, although implementation was considered during the program by identifying the types and most usable forms of products that the research would produce; however, funding for full-scale implementation support activities was not included in the budget and required additional legislation. In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) provided such funding, which was administered by FHWA. In addition to specifically authorized ISTEA funding, many states used a portion of the State Planning and Research funds, state funds, and in-kind activities to implement SHRP prod- ucts. AASHTO maintained a high-level task force to oversee SHRP implementation until the late 1990s. The SHRP Implementation Task Force facilitated coordination among the states and maintained SHRP implementation as a high priority on AASHTO’s agenda. Exhibit 6–1 lists some of the highlights of SHRP implementation. 6-4 Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program TABLE 6–1 Potential joint projects between the Reliability and Capacity focus areas of F-SHRP Reliability Capacity 3–2.1 Data Requirements for Operations and Performance Monitoring 4–1.1 Improving Our Understanding of Highway Users and the Factors Affecting Travel Demand 3–2.2 Establishing National and Local Monitoring Programs for Mobility and Travel Time Reliability 4–1.2 Improving Our Understanding of Transportation System Performance 3–2.3 Analytic Procedures for Determining the Impacts of Reliability Mitigation Strategies 4–1.3 Understanding the Contribution of Operations, Technology, and Design to Meeting Highway Capacity Needs 3–2.4 Incorporating Reliability Estimation into Planning and Operations Modeling Tools 4–2.5 Developing and Applying a Decision- Support Tool for Integrated Systems Planning and Project Development 3–2.5 Incorporating Mobility and Reliability Performance Metrics into the Transportation Programming Process 4–3.4: Ensuring Support for Highway Capacity Projects by Improving Collaborative Decision Making 3–2.6 Quantifying the Costs of Travel Time Reliability 4–1.5 Improving Our Understanding of Interactions between Transportation Capacity and Economic Systems 3–4.1 Advanced Surveillance Technologies for Operations 4–1.2 Improving Our Understanding of Transportation System Performance 4–2.1 Applying Location- and Tracking-Based Technologies to Collect Data for Systems Planning and Project Development

Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program 6-5 Activities Associated with Implementation The process of research-development-implementation is a continuum, and, ideally, one set of activities flows into the next. For the purposes of F-SHRP, three types of activities in the area of implementation are distinguished: 1. Implementation per se is the actual use of something, in this case the use of a tech- nology or approach that has resulted from research and development conducted under F-SHRP. It is, by definition, carried out by users: state DOTs, MPOs, environmental agencies, vehicle manufacturers, tow truck operators, police officers, emergency per- sonnel, and others, depending on the product in question. In the long run, if research is successful, these users will incorporate the results into their ordinary way of doing business and into their budgets. 2. Implementation support activities encompass a wide range of products and services that can help a user implement a result of research and development. These activities can include things like training, conferences and workshops, demonstration projects, and technical support. 3. Implementation preparation activities help prepare for and lead up to implementation by identifying potential users, getting them involved in the research and development effort, and disseminating information about research results. These activities do not con- stitute implementation itself, nor do they directly support the implementation efforts of users, but they are a necessary component of the overall process of getting research results into practice. Consideration of Implementation in the F-SHRP Report Special Report 260 identifies the following activities associated with implementation that should be addressed during the research phase. They are generally in the category of imple- mentation preparation activities, as defined above. • Identification of expected research products and their users, • Engagement of potential users, Exhibit 6–1. Highlights of SHRP Implementation Activities During Performance of the Research • SHRP state coordinators: Every state assigned a person to coordinate SHRP implementation in that state. These coordinators met annually and received regular newsletters. Many states also had a SHRP implementation committee that oversaw state implementation activities. • Loaned staff: Transportation agencies sent staff to work at SHRP offices for short periods. These persons often focused on implementation preparation activities during the research phase. After Completion of the Research • Lead State program: In this program, a small number of states would agree to implement particular SHRP products first and then coach other states on effective implementation strategies. • Superpave and LTPP Committees: These committees provide stakeholder input to and oversight of FHWA’s development efforts in Superpave and their continued conduct of the LTPP program. • Development of specifications: AASHTO coordinated the development of specifications, which were necessary for states and local governments to implement many SHRP products. • Implementation support activities: These activities were funded and administered through FHWA.

• Determination of where the long-term responsibility for implementation coordination and facilitation will lie, • Dissemination of research findings, • Coordination of research efforts, • Testing and evaluation of research findings, and • Evaluation and feedback. Implementation Activities in the Research Plans In addition to the implementation preparation activities identified in Special Report 260, the four research plans include efforts that fall into the implementation-support category, such as training, conferences and workshops, and demonstration projects. Each plan han- dles these activities differently. • The Renewal plan tends to integrate dissemination and implementation activities into individual research projects or groups of projects. The plan recommends the develop- ment of a Renewal clearinghouse and mechanisms to partner with the private sector to bring products to market. • The Safety plan is less oriented toward short-term application of results, so imple- mentation activities do not figure significantly in the plan. The countermeasure evalu- ation component is expected to produce results that support implementation in a fairly straightforward manner, while the risk studies will produce new knowledge and analy- sis of countermeasure implications, which may require additional developmental work to produce actual implementable countermeasures. • The Reliability plan concentrates its implementation activities in Project 3–1.2, National Outreach Program for Transportation Operations Practices. This project will synthe- size results of F-SHRP (and other) research and develop products and product deliv- ery mechanisms. • The structure of the Capacity plan—fundamental knowledge supporting data/tools devel- opment leading to applications—causes implementation to be concentrated toward the end of this chain, integrated into appropriate projects. The Capacity plan also clearly identifies both interim and final products. Overall Approach to F-SHRP Implementation The ultimate impact of F-SHRP will depend upon how effectively the research results are incorporated into the day-to-day activities of the highway sector. The majority of the effort necessary to effect this outcome—that is, implementation per se and implementation support activities—will take place outside of F-SHRP’s time frame and budget. Neverthe- less, there are several implementation preparation activities that should be carried out in concert with the research, as indicated in Special Report 260 and summarized earlier in this chapter. Until research products can be identified with some specificity, it is not possible to determine the appropriate implementation activities in detail nor estimate the time and resources required for implementation. This section briefly describes the main implemen- tation preparation tasks that can be undertaken within F-SHRP and suggests activities and potential roles of other institutions in longer-term implementation support. 1. Implementation preparation activities during the research phase. These activities may be carried out with F-SHRP funding and account for approximately 5% to 10% of F-SHRP’s budget. In addition to the items mentioned in Special Report 260 and the area-specific implementation activities covered in the research plans, the following efforts may be included here: 6-6 Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program

Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program 6-7 • Implementation plan: Once the types of research products are better defined, per- haps in the second or third year of the program, an implementation plan can be developed. This plan will guide early implementation preparation activities and be revised as research progresses and experience is gained by early adopters of the products. • F-SHRP coordinators: State coordinators, like those involved with SHRP, could provide continuity between research and longer-term implementation by remaining involved into the implementation stage. Coordinators from other major stakeholder groups might also be considered. • Communication unit: The F-SHRP organization could have an office dedicated to activities like marketing and dissemination of information. This office would be responsible for publishing newsletters, articles, press releases, and research reports; maintaining F-SHRP website(s); and handling outreach and coordina- tion activities. • Crosscutting implementation unit: The F-SHRP organization could centralize market research and implementation preparation activities. This unit could work with researchers and stakeholder groups to configure research findings and pro- totypes to user needs to permit effective evaluation of the research products and facilitate eventual implementation. This could possibly be the same office as the communication unit; these are distinct but related functions—the implementa- tion unit will be more concerned with technical issues related to the content of and ability to implement the research. 2. Longer-term implementation support activities. These activities represent the bulk of the implementation effort, most of which will take place after the conclusion of the research program. Such ongoing implementation support activities may best be funded and carried out by organizations that will exist beyond the life of F-SHRP. Some examples of these activities include the following: • Training: Programs like the National Highway Institute (NHI) and Local Tech- nical Assistance Program (LTAP) could provide training through their ongoing programs. F-SHRP could work with NHI and LTAP to develop training and assist with initial training sessions that may take place while the research pro- gram is still underway. • Field testing and implementation incentives: While F-SHRP research funding could support pilot field testing, full-scale field tests and incentives for wide- spread implementation would be handled through other programs, such as those of FHWA and NHTSA or through pooled fund projects. Research funds would not be used to help a large number of states or local agencies try a new technol- ogy to see how well it works in their circumstances (“testing” from their point of view, but not from a research point of view). • Long-term technical support: Private, public, or academic institutions will need to be identified to provide long-term maintenance of valuable databases pro- duced in F-SHRP (a large database for safety plus additional data for the other areas) and long-term technical support for software products developed in sev- eral of the research areas. • Direct implementation activities: Actual implementation by users will entail activities such as training personnel, purchasing equipment and software, and modifying existing practices to meet best practices developed through research. These activities represent agency investments in advancing the state of their practice and are not included in the research budget. They are generally expected to be covered through agency budgets, with the assistance of federal-aid funds such as State Planning and Research and other eligible categories and possibly

through additional federal funding for implementation support activities as was the case with SHRP. As the scope and scale of long-term implementation activities become more well-defined during the research phase, F-SHRP will seek commitments from organizations suited to support these activities to ensure a smooth transition from research to practice. 6-8 Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program