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.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES AdvÃers Io the Nslion on Science, Engineering, ond Medkine TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 500 Fifth Street, NW Woshington, DC 2000,l 1 September 19,2012 Mr. Victor M. Mendez Administrator Federal Hi ghway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 OF THE /VAI/ONA¿ ACADEMIES Mr. John Horsley Executive Director American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 225 Washington, DC 20001 Dear Mr. Mendez and Mr. Horsley: This is the second letter report of the Committee on Implementing the Research Results of the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2). SHRP 2 is a major research program authorized by Congress and administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) under a cooperative agreement with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The committee was established at the request of FHWA to provide policy and technical advice to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) on recommended strategies for introducing the results of SHRP 2 into the knowledge base and the active practice of transportation engineers, planners, traffic managers, and other potential users. The committee will focus its recommendations on implementation plans and future actions by USDOT and the state departments of transportation. The committee membership has been drawn from the executive and senior professional levels of state highway agencies, a metropolitan planning organÃzation, private industry, transportation- related associations, and academia. At its June 18-19,2012, meeting, FHWA Executive Director Jeffrey Paniati briefed the committee on the actions taken in response to our March 19,2\l2,letter. We appreciate the responsiveness of both FHWA and AASHTO to the recommendations that were contained in our letter. It is clear that in the implementation planning that occurred since our last meeting that both FHWA and AASHTO have taken into account the issues and recommendations contained in our previous letter. Summary of June 2012 Committee Meeting At the committee's June 18-19 meeting FHWA, AASHTO, and TRB staff made a presentation on the process used to develop a three-year concept plan for implementation of priority SHRP 2 products for the Renewal, Reliability, and Capacity focus areas. We commend the collaborative approach that was used by FHWA and AASHTO, with support from TRB staff, in developing the joint FHWA/AASHTO concept plan. The Safety focus area was not included in the three- year plan because completion of the products of the research phase was not as far along. The committee was briefed on implementation planning activities that have begun by FHWA, NHTSA, AASHTO, and TRB, including issues of ownership and stewardship of the large safety databases being developed by SHRP 2. Phone: 202 334 2934 Fox: 2O2 334 2003 www.TRB.org
Staff from FHWA and AASHTO briefed us on which priority projects are contained in the plan, as shown in Attachment2, including which interrelated ones will be implemented as bundles or suites of products. Six products had previously been identified by FHWA and AASHTO as priority products that were ready for widespread deployment. In its last letter the committee had recommended that deployment of these six products be initiated as soon as possible. FHWA and AASHTO have incorporated these six products into the three-year plan that was presented at the June meeting, but it appears that there had not been significant progress on deplo¡rrnent of these products at the time of the meeting. The committee again urges that deployment of these products occur in a timely manner. With the understanding that a more detailed plan will be developed between now and our next meeting and that the plan will be reevaluated and updated annually, the committee endorses the plan as presented. Any updates to the plan should reflect the needs and priorities of the agencies that will be the users of the products, particularly the state DOTs. Priorities should be established by the anticipated users of the products. The committee was briefed on the draft strategic marketing and communications plan developed by the staff of FHWA, AASHTO, TRB, and the Volpe Center. The committee endorses the overall plan with the understanding that additional details will be developed between now and our next meeting. It is particularly important that work be done on developing messages regardlng the benefits and value that are anticipated from implementation of SHRP 2 products. Throughout the course of the two-day meeting, information technology issues were raised a number of times. Recognizing that many of the products coming out of the SHRP 2 program involve web tools, software, andlor databases, decisions must be made in a timely manner regarding responsibilities for the future hosting, maintenance, upkeep, upgrading, user support, and financial support for these IT products. The SHRP 2 Oversight Committee, which oversees TRB's SHRP 2 research and development program, approved funding for TRB to continue to provide IT support as needed through 2014. For SHRP 2 implementation to be successful, FHWA and AASHTO must decide on ownership and stewardship issues for the IT products prior to a major commitment to implementation of these products. In the case of major IT products, such as the Transportation for Communities: Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) web tool and the safety databases, govemance issues regarding use and enhancements to the IT product also need to be addressed. The committee recognizes that detailed implementation planning, including marketing and communications planning, is just now beginning at a product level. It is important that product- level planning is done in the context of strategic and program-wide planning. Many of the products are interrelated, and implementation efforts for these products, including marketing and communications, should be tied together. Recommendations The committee is pleased with the collaborative approach used by FHWA and AASHTO, working together with TRB staff, in developing the concept plan for implementation. A consensus-based approach that seeks, receives, and reflects user input and feedback should
continue to be used to jointly develop details for implementation activities. The concept plan presented at the June l8-19 meeting forms a sound basis for moving forward, but many details need to be developed between now and the committee's November meeting. In that context the following recommendations are offered: l. ImplementatÃon Plan. Using a consensus-based approach, FHWA and AASHTO should jointly develop details þr the concept plan that was presented to the committee, both at a program-wide and a product level. The detailed plan should be developed using a process that seeks, receives, and reflects user input andfeedback. So there is no delay in the start of implementation, prior to the completion of the research and development phase for each product, FHWA and AASHTO, with support from TRB staff, should jointly develop a detailed implementation plan for each product. Product-level implementation plans should identify an implementation strategy, the target audience, roles and responsibilities of each organization, responsible staff from each organization, a schedule, a budget, training needs, a marketing and communications strategy, and an evaluation strategy, including an estimate of return on investment. FHWA and AASHTO should also identify any additional development work that needs to be done by TRB, together with additional support needed from TRB prior to and during implementation. At its next meeting the committee would like to review more details for the program-wide implementation plan, including an overall implementation strategy for each of the products in the three-year plan. It would also like to review examples of two or three detailed product-level implementation plans for products that had previously been identified as priorities for early deployment. Planning should also be done at a programmatic level. Products that are shown to start in 2012 wlll require detailed plans to be developed at this time, but further planning should also be done this year for the products shown with 201 3 and 2014 starts to ensure that appropriate budgets, schedules, and resources are included in the plan. As detailed planning takes place, potential users should provide input to the process. As the plan is updated annually, FHWA and AASHTO should seek out and take into account user needs and priorities, as well as evaluation results and feedback from users of the initial products. 2. Marketing and CommunÃcations Plan. Using a consensus-based approaclt, FHW.A and AASHTO should jointly develop details þr both the strategic and individual product marketing and communications plans. The detaÃled plans should be developed using a process that seel<s, receives, and reflects user input andfeedback. The committee believes that the draft strategic marketing and communications plan is a sound plan, but additional details need to be developed for the program-wide marketing efforts, and marketing and communications for individual SHRP 2 products need to be coordinated with the program-wide plan.
J. The committee believes that the current plan is overly focused on "image" marketing and recommends that it focus instead more on how individual products will meet the needs of users and how this message should be communicated. The most important goal of marketing and communications is to support the successful technology transfer of products to implementing agencies, and the marketing and communications effort should be focused in that direction. The committee recommends that an immediate priority be to develop messaging regarding the benefits and value that can be expected to be gained from implementation of SHRP 2 products, an "elevator speech" that can be used with Congressional staff and others who are considering future funding for SHRP 2 implementation. IJsers, including persons outside the transportation profession who are within the target audience, should be involved in developing and testing such messages. To date less than one-quarter of the $400 million funding needed for SHRP 2 implementation (over and above the funds provided for research) that was identified in TRB Special Report 296has been secured. State DOTs will need to identify what portion of Statewide Planning and Research funds will be allocated to SHRP 2 implementation in 2013 and2014, and Congress will need to decide on additional funding for implementation beyond 2014. The committee recommends that o'signature" products be identified for each focus area and messages be developed for these products that demonstrate the value of implementing SHRP 2 products. The messages need to be technically substantive, be geared toward technology transfer, and not come across as merely advertising or selling. To the extent possible, messaging should be developed that ties the products together, and messages such as the proposed tagline "save lives, save time, save money" should be tested with target audiences. A particular focus of both the program-wide and individual product marketing plans should be the users of products at the staff level within state DOTs and other transportation professionals who will be users of the products, such as local agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and private-sector consultant and contractor firms. The Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) offers a major opportunity for marketing to local goverTrment agencies. Associations that represent private-sector firms that would use products should also be targeted. The committee recommends that the benefits of using the products should be estimated at this time, perhaps using ranges, and the benefits should be compared with the costs of developing and implementing the products. $218 million is being invested in SHRP 2 research, with many useful products emanating from the research. Congress and others will be interested in knowing what benefits have been received from the major investment that has been made in SHRP 2 research. The return on investment in SHRP 2 should be a major part of the marketing message. Information Technology Plan. Using a consensus-based approach, FHWA and AASHTO should joÃntly develop details at this time of an inþrmation technologlt (IT) plan that Ãdentifies who will own and support each IT product; how each product will befinancially supported; and how governance Ãssues wÃll be decided, when pertinent. The detailed plan
should be developed using a process that seelçs, receives, and reflects user input and feedback. Many of the SHRP 2 products consist of web tools, software, and/or databases that will require long-term maintenance, enhancements, and user support. The success of long-term implementation of the overall SHRP 2progranwill be significantly tied to decisions on who will provide long-term support for these IT products and how that support will be funded. The SHRP 2 Oversight Committee, which oversees TRB's SHRP 2 research and development program, approved funding for TRB support of these products through 2014. In order to ensure that support will continue past 2014, planning needs to take place now, because there will be a long lead time required to ensure a smooth transition from TRB to the new owner of each of these products. In order for migration to occur for many of these products, they will need to be modified to meet the IT standards of the new owners. This could require a substantial effort that may be both costly and time consuming. For example, the SHRP 2 Oversight Committee approved TRB's assuming responsibility for converting TCAPP to meet USDOT IT standards. It is estimated that conversion could cost as much as $830,000 and could take a year to carry out. Additional time will be required for USDOT staff to have the capability to fully support the product once it has been migrated to USDOT servers. FHWA and AASHTO should identify the cost, schedule, and responsibility for conversion for all IT products and should budget money for the conversion. Within the next few months, they should identify those products where they expect TRB to take lead responsibility in managing the conversion, so that money can be budgeted and planning for staffand contractor support can take place. FHWA should determine which products it intends to support on USDOT servers. AASHTO should identifr which products could be supported as part of its AASHTOWaTe program, including the feasibility of financial support through user fees. Both organizations should explore alternative financial models, such as public-private partnerships. Decisions should be made regarding the future of IT products that neither FHWA nor AASHTO will own or support. These decisions will affect which products can be included in future updates of the overall SHRP 2 implementation plan. 4. TCAPP Governance Structure. FHWA and AASHTO should agree to a governance structureþr TCAPP in which users pløy a major role in decisions regardingfuture modifi.cations, enhancements, ønd issues regarding how TCAPP is used. Transportation for Communities: Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) is a robust web tool for systematically integrating environmental, economic, and community requirements into the analysis, planning, and design of highway capacity enhancements. This system can help build consensus throughout these processes and ultimately speed project delivery. TCAPP integrates the results of much of the research done in the Capacity program into a single web tool. TCAPP is a tool that has the potential to significantly improve the way planning and highway project development is done in the United States. However, to achieve this vision, it is critical that users voluntarily adopt those portions of
TCAPP that work bæt wÃttrin the contott of theirparticular agency's processes and culturc. Basâ¬d on orperiens⬠with the TCAPP pilot studies, æ well as othermajor process ohenges of tt¡is t¡pe that involve IT toots, there are likely to be many suggestions for improvønørt, both in the fT product itself and in the way it is used. There are likely to be ftr more changcs suggcsted than resor¡rces available to make the changes, so priorities will need to be establishod. Use of TCAPP will also potmtially involve major change management issuâ¬s within agørcies that incorporate it into their business prccæses. It is important that useà leam f¡om each othcr about the best ways to use TCAPP a¡rd that its use not be mandated. The committec recommends that FHWA explore creation of an advisory committee for TCAPP, perhaps similar to the long-standing progfam review committees for the t¡ng- Term Pavemørt Program (LTPP) and the Rescarch and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC). The conunittee is gratified to hea¡ that cr¡r¡ent leadership at FHWA does not intend to mandate TCAPP's usg but that could change with a change in leadership. Therefore, we rccommend that FH\ryA issue a policyststement regardingthe voluntaryuse of TCAPP by state DOTs and other implcmørting agmciæ. We also ræomme,nd that FHWA coordinate with ottrer USDOTI modal administrations regarding whether TCAPP and othcr Capacity program products could be useñ¡l for planning and project development for other modes of transportation. Clodng The committee oommends FÃIWA and AASHTO for the wor* theyhave done to date in ptanning for SHRP 2 implementation. Much Ãs yet to be done, includingmore det¡iled planning but the hilo organizations have developed a sound conceptual plan. We look forwa¡d to oontinuing our dialogue with FH1VA and AASHTO on this important national srideavor. Please let us know if there are specific issues ¡ou would like the committee to address, in addition to those raised in this lettø, so that they can be usod to plan the committec's work and fr¡ture meetings. Sincorely, 7,/zhá KirkT. Stcudlo Chair, Committee on Implcmcnting the Rescarch Results of SHRP 2 Att¡chmsrits 6
