The Vital Federal Role in Meeting the Highway Innovation Imperative (2019)

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.

35 3 Federal Highway Administration and Intelligent Transportation System Research, Development, and Technology Programs In 2015, Congress authorized $316.5 million annually over 5 years for re- search, development, and technology (RD&T) transfer that is mostly focused on highway transportation.1 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) directly manages $216.5 million of highway RD&T and participates in the management of the $100 million multimodal Intelligent Transportation Sys- tems (ITS) RD&T of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). ITS RD&T is managed by a USDOT Joint Program Office (JPO). This chapter describes these RD&T programs and assesses whether they fulfill the criteria established by Congress in 23 USC 502(a) that they cover the full innovation cycle and include fundamental long-term research and evaluation. In describing the FHWA RD&T program, the chapter relies heavily on FHWA’s Annual Modal Research Plan2 for Fiscal Years (FY) 2017–2018 because it both describes the FHWA RD&T program in detail and esti- mates the share of funds allocated across the phases of applied research, development, and technology transfer. (Annual Modal Research Plans for subsequent years were not available at the time of this writing [May 2019].) These phases roughly align with the stages of the innovation life cycle described in Chapter 2. The chapter also draws on the ITS Strategic Plan 1 All funding levels described in this chapter are funding levels authorized by Congress in the FAST Act. These levels do not account for the obligation limits that Congress places on these funds, which vary from year to year. In FY 2017, for example, the obligation limit reduced total authorized funding by 7.2 percent. 2 USDOT. 2016. Annual Modal Research Plans 2017: Federal Highway Administration. https://www.transportation.gov/administrations/assistant-secretary-research-and-technology/ federal-highway-administration-fhwa.

36 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION 2015–2019 in the discussion of the ITS program.3 FHWA’s and ITS JPO’s extensive websites are also relied on for additional details about specific ini- tiatives and published research. The chapter describes and reviews FHWA’s Highway Research and Development (HRD) program, the Transportation Innovation Deployment Program (TIDP), Training and Education program, and the ITS JPO program. The final section provides a summary assessment. HIGHWAY RD&T AND INNOVATION DEPLOYMENT PROGRAMS The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) of 2015 autho- rizes $125 million annually for HRD and $67.5 million annually for TIDP. FHWA has discretion over about 80 percent of these funds; the RD&T and technology transfer programs that these discretionary funds support are de- scribed in the next two main sections. Congress also designated demonstration programs in the FAST Act that require FHWA to set aside about 20 percent of HRD and TIDP program funds. These designated programs are described in the third main section. The final section provides a summary assessment. In its 2017–2018 Annual Modal Research Plan, FHWA combines HRD and TIDP core funds when describing its discretionary RD&T program- matic areas. This text follows this approach, and the general outline of the Annual Modal Research Plan, because FHWA estimates in the Plan how funding is allocated across RD&T stages. This allocation for FY 2017–2018 provides a way of assessing resource allocation across FHWA’s RD&T portfolio. This section of the chapter also relies on a white paper provided by FHWA that describes the HRD program in greater detail than in the Annual Modal Research Plan. Particular reliance is made on the white paper’s listing of more than 200 discrete RD&T activities in the FY 2019 program. The funding levels across programs described in the white paper for 2019 (but not total funding) vary somewhat from the 2017–2018 Annual Modal Research Plan. This text relies on the latter document for the budgetary figures and resource allocations cited below because it is the latest available document that estimates funding shares across RD&T at the program level. The white paper is relied on for describing the current and planned HRD activities. HRD AND TIDP CORE RD&T HRD and TIDP core RD&T covers highway RD&T in 12 separate cat- egories that are described and summarized in this section. Table 3-1 shows 3 USDOT. ITS Strategic Plan 2015–2019. https://www.its.dot.gov/factsheets/itsjpo_stratplan. htm.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 37 FHWA’s classification of the funding in each category as applied research, development, or technology transfer. Bridges and Structures ($6 million) The objectives of the bridges and structures RD&T program are to improve the condition of bridges, tunnels, and other structures; enhance performance management; advance technologies and methods to accelerate construction; and improve the resilience and sustainability of highway infrastructure.4 Key structures RD&T activities include advancing novel design, fabrication, and construction concepts; developing solutions to resist corrosion and other forms of degradation; advancing optimized applications of ultra-high 4 FHWA. n.d. White Paper: Overview of FHWA RD&T Program. TABLE 3-1 Classification of HRD and TIDP Core RD&T Fundsa HRD and TIDP Core RD&T FY 2017 Authorized Funds ($ millions) Applied Research Development Technology Transfer Bridges and Structures 6.0 3.0 2.3 0.7 Construction and Administration 3.0 2.1 0.9 TPM 15.0 10.5 4.5 Performance Management Data Support 5.0 3.5 1.5 IPD 2.5 2.0 0.5 Safety 13.5 8.0 4.0 1.5 Freight and Operations 14.0 9.1 2.8 2.1 Planning and Environment 12.5 7.0 2.5 30.0 Policy 8.0 5.6 1.6 0.8 EAR 6.0 6.0 Corporate and Communications 7.5 5.1 2.4 SBIR 2.0 1.85 0.15 Total 106.0 65.75 21.25 19.0 NOTE: EAR = Exploratory Advanced Research program; FY = Fiscal Year; HRD = Highway Research and Development program; IPD = Innovative Program Delivery; RD&T = research, development, and technology; SBIR = Small Business Innovative Research; TIDP = Technol- ogy and Innovation Deployment Program; TPM = Transportation Performance Management. a USDOT. 2016. Annual Modal Research Plans 2017: Federal Highway Administration. https://www.transportation.gov/administrations/assistant-secretary-research-and-technology/ federal-highway-administration-fhwa.

38 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION performance concrete (UHPC);5 provision of technical guidance to im- prove resilience; investigation and documentation of the reliability of non- destructive evaluation (NDE) techniques; and development and provision of guidance on corrosion resistance of reinforcing steel and bridge coatings. RD&T in geotechnical and hydraulic topics include advancing reliability- based design and construction of foundations; development of specifications and guidelines; development of next-generation tools for scour protection; and evaluation of geosynthetics in pavement design. FHWA research is also exploring use of robots and unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct NDE in- spections. FHWA identifies partners and customers for each of its RD&T activities. In bridges and structures, state DOTs are mentioned as partners in almost all activities. Academia, industry, and other federal agencies are also mentioned. In terms of the innovation cycle, FHWA classifies the expenditures as follows: 50 percent for applied research, 38 percent for development, and 12 percent for technology transfer. Much of this work appears to be highly applied—including developing guidelines, specifications, and guid- ance—but some FHWA research and development (R&D) includes con- ducting research on advanced materials and technologies. FHWA projects are specifically seeking to advance national goals expressed by Congress for performance management, including condition assessment and monitoring for asset management. Regarding the evaluation stage of the innovation cycle, in recent years FHWA has been conducting retrospective, case study evaluations of several of its major RD&T activities.6 Included among the case studies are (a) a novel design FHWA developed for bridge foundations for structures with low traffic volumes that simplifies construction, rehabilitation, and re- duces their costs and (b) FHWA expert’s forensic role in addressing the 5 The agency’s labs have long explored new materials for highway applications that might last longer and perform better, a primary example of which would be development and evaluation of high-performance concrete (HPC) and ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC). UHPC has many desirable performance characteristics including high compressive strength and reduced permeability to water (permeability leads to corrosion), but its rela- tively high cost is restricting its use to niche applications, including for filling joints between precast bridge deck segments. See, for example, FHWA. 2017. Ultra-High Performance Concrete for Bridge Overlays. Tech Note. FHWA-HRT-17-097. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ publications/research/infrastructure/bridge/17097/17097.pdf. Russell, H., and B. Graybeal. 2013. Ultra-High Performance Concrete: A State of the Art Report for the Bridge Com- munity. FHWA-HRT-13-060. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/ structures/hpc/13060/13060.pdf. 6 USDOT. 2018. FHWA Research and Technology Evaluation Program. https://www.fhwa. dot.gov/publications/research/randt/evaluations/18034/18034.pdf.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 39 2007 collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minnesota.7 The evaluations find that FHWA’s development and technology transfer efforts led to expanded use of the novel foundation design by local governments and states. They also found that (a) FHWA’s bridge experts were critical in the National Transportation Safety Board’s subsequent determination of the cause of the I-35W bridge collapse and (b) FHWA’s partnership with state DOTs devel- oped and advanced guidance to avoid reoccurrence of the I-35W bridge failure in bridges of similar design. Pavements and Materials ($11 million) FHWA’s Pavement and Materials R&D Program “seeks to drive innovation in pavement materials, design, construction, evaluation and management practices, with a focus on advancing performance-related specifications.”8 The most substantial component of FHWA’s pavements and materials fund- ing (77 percent) encourages wider deployment of proven pavement technol- ogies as directed by Congress (see the Accelerated Deployment of Pavement Technologies section within the discussion of Designated Programs). In terms of the innovation cycle, FHWA classifies the expenditures as follows: 18 percent for applied research, 5 percent for development, and 77 percent for technology transfer. Within the applied research category, some of FHWA’s work in pavements and materials is highly applied, in- cluding developing specifications and applied research on the performance of mix designs that incorporate a higher share of waste materials (fly ash, recycled shingles, and shredded tires). Key activities in R&D include devel- opment and enhancements of tests to enhance use of performance-related specifications;9 enhancement and deployment of performance-engineered mix design10 for concrete and asphalt pavements; advancing state DOT pavement management system decision making and preservation treat- ments; developing and enhancing pavement life-cycle cost analysis; and advancing management practices and materials to improve pavement fric- tion for enhanced safety. State DOTs and committees of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) are this group’s main partners. 7 Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System (GRS-IBS). https://www.fhwa.dot. gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc-3/grs-ibs.cfm. 8 FHWA. n.d. White Paper: Overview of FHWA RD&T Program. 9 Performance Specifications Strategic Roadmap: A Vision for the Future. https://www.fhwa. dot.gov/construction/pssr0400.cfm. 10 Performance-engineered mixture design is a comprehensive system of equipment, test protocols, and performance analysis that facilitates the evaluation of nontraditional materials and mixture designs that use a variety of production techniques or mixture additives.

40 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION Independent case study evaluations of specific pavement and materials RD&T activities have not been completed, but an assessment is under way of FHWA’s RD&T on high-friction surface treatments; warm-mix asphalt with high proportions of recycled materials; and precast concrete pave- ments. The program is on the verge of reporting a breakthrough in testing for Alkali-Silica Reactivity (ASR), which is an insidious cause of concrete deterioration that may not become evident until the affected infrastructure has been in service for many years. Repairs and retrofits to respond to ASR, once evident, is a multi-billion-dollar challenge for state DOTs. Current ASR tests of materials proposed to be used in concrete are labor intensive and can require 1 year to complete. After delving into the chemistry behind the reactions, FHWA researchers were able to develop a test that can be completed in 21 days. Currently in the final stages of verification, FHWA expects to submit a draft test method to AASHTO in 2020 for adoption by the states. Construction and Program Administration ($3 million) The objective of FHWA’s Construction and Project Management RD&T research and technology is to “advance innovations in highway construc- tion and project management practices” (including scope, schedule, cost, and quality) “that accelerate construction and improve the quality of the constructed product.”11 Key activities are assessing and advancing NDE techniques to locate underground utilities; demonstrating the benefits of us- ing Building Information Modeling;12 developing and sharing best practices in construction; developing training for schedule management and bridge inspection; and promotion of best practice in accelerated bridge construc- tion. One of the Construction RD&T activities is an evaluation of FHWA’s Major Projects program,13 whereby it provides technical assistance to states on cost estimating and financial project management planning for large- scale projects. State DOTs are listed as partners for almost all Construc- tion activities. Research aimed at accelerating the delivery of construction projects is addressing a congressional priority for delivering projects more quickly. In terms of the innovation cycle, although FHWA estimates that it allocates 100 percent of the funding in this category to research and de- velopment, most of the construction activities described in its white paper appear to be technology transfer activities. 11 FHWA. n.d. White Paper: Overview of FHWA RD&T Program. 12 FHWA Update: Building Information Modeling. http://iheep2018.com/docs/Presentations/ BIM%20For%20Infrastructure%20FHWA%20Update%20-%20Connie%20Yew.pdf. 13 Major Projects. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/majorprojects.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 41 Transportation Performance Management (TPM) ($15 million) The objective of TPM RD&T is to advance implementation of Congress’s mandates made in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act of 2012 and continued in the FAST Act, for TPM and Asset Management.14 Key activities include designing and implementing capacity building in state DOTs, along with peer exchanges, workshops, and techni- cal assistance; development of analytical tools, technical and informational resources and guidebooks; and a study of state DOT investment, freight, and safety plans. Also included within the TPM program is continuing FHWA data collection on long-term pavement and bridge condition perfor- mance.15 State DOTs and, to a lesser extent, metropolitan planning orga- nizations (MPOs) are FHWA’s partners in these activities. Regarding stages of the innovation cycle, FHWA allocates 70 percent for applied research, most of which supports data collection on long-term pavement and bridge performance, and 30 percent for development. Regarding evaluation, the FHWA Long-Term Pavement Performance program has had ongoing peer review of the program by independent experts convened by the National Academies since its inception in the 1990s. Performance Management Data Support ($5 million) Per the FAST Act, up to $10 million for each of FY 2016 through 2020 may be used to carry out a program to develop, use, and maintain datas- ets and data analysis tools to assist MPOs, states, and FHWA in carrying out performance management analyses.16 FHWA budgets $5 million for this purpose, 70 percent of which is allocated to applied research and 30 percent to development. (These activities have been integrated into exist- ing programs and activities discussed in the other categories of this section, primarily in Policy RD&T, but are reported here separately to maintain consistency with the Annual Modal Research Plan.) Innovative Program Delivery ($2.5 million) The objectives of the Innovative Program Delivery program are to ex- pand awareness and utilization of alternative financing and procurement 14 Transportation Performance Management. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/ pm.cfm. 15 The Long-Term Bridge Performance and Long-Term Pavement Performance projects, are collecting performance and condition data on bridge and highway assets over decades; such information is essential for improved asset management planning and resource allocation, one of the specific performance targets required in MAP-21. See TRB. 2019. Long-Term Infra- structure Program Letter Report 2019. http://www.trb.org/Highways1/Blurbs/178691.aspx. 16 USDOT. 2016. p. 36.

42 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION techniques, which the program provides through (1) capacity building and outreach; (2) technical assistance for project implementation; and (3) technical resources, guidebooks, and analytical tools. Key activities include development of a database of projects using alternative contracting methods (ACMs); research grants to states using ACMs; development of guidebooks; and development and delivery of training in public–private partnerships. Partners are primarily state DOTs. FHWA allocates 80 percent of funding in this category to applied re- search and 20 percent to development. In terms of the innovation cycle, cur- rent work covers both applied research and deployment. Previous FHWA research on, and evaluation of, ACMs illustrates a successful long-term (20-year) effort by FHWA. It began by approving limited deviations from federal competitive bidding practices to permit state DOTs to pilot test in- novative contracting approaches that could accelerate the pace of project delivery and reduce project costs.17 These contracting methods opened the door to increased private-sector innovation in construction in ways that speed project delivery and reduce total costs.18 FHWA’s study of the results of a large sample of projects using ACMs illustrates use of evaluation re- search to measure the efficacy of its efforts. Safety ($13.5 million) FHWA’s safety RD&T program objectives focus on supporting state DOTs in meeting Congress’s mandated safety activities; states’ abilities to imple- ment a performance-driven safety program; development and application of data and analysis; advancing states’ use of safety data and analysis practice in meeting their TPM requirements; improving the effectiveness of safety countermeasures and highway safety designs; and understanding how people respond to signs, markings, designs, countermeasures, and new technologies such as connected and automated vehicles (CAVs).19 Key activities include implementing legislative safety requirements as they 17 Alternative Contracting. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/sep_a. cfm#s1. See also TRB. 2018. Transportation Delivery: Alternative Contracting Methods Re- search, TR News, No. 316. July–August. 18 FHWA. 2017. Tech Brief: Alternative Contracting Method Performance in U.S. High- way Construction. FHWA-HRT-17-100. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/ infrastructure/17100/17100.pdf. See also other research that draws on the projects studied by FHWA: Alleman, D., et al. 2016. The Use and Performance of Alternative Contracting Methods on Small Highway Projects. Procedia Engineering, Vol. 145, and Alleman, D., et al. 2017. An Examination of Competition on Traditional and Design-Build Highway Construc- tion Projects. Conference Paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322581495_AN_ EXAMINATION_OF_COMPETITION_ON_TRADITIONAL_AND_DESIGN-BUILD_HIGH WAY_CONSTRUCTION_PROJECTS. 19 FHWA. n.d. White Paper: Overview of FHWA RD&T Program.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 43 relate to RD&T; technical capacity building in safety across all levels of government; identifying innovative road safety solutions and developing countermeasures; information sharing, training, and technical assistance; R&D on new methodologies and tools; improvement in design to enhance the safety of all highway users; and research on human response to low levels of vehicle automation (driver assistance warnings and automated emergency braking).20 Almost all of the safety RD&T efforts are provided for, or partnered with, state DOTs. The applied research is funding, among other things, the development of analytical tools to improve estimates of the safety ramifica- tions of alternative designs and highway geometric improvements through development of Crash Modification Factors.21 These factors feed FHWA’s Interactive Highway Safety Design Model,22 which is coordinated with two related initiatives: the Highway Safety Manual23 and Safety Analyst (a model developed by FHWA and available through AASHTO).24 In the safety area, FHWA allocates 59 percent of its funding for ap- plied research, 30 percent for development, and 11 percent for technology transfer. An FHWA RD&T case study evaluation on FHWA’s efforts to promote roundabouts found that FHWA’s efforts hastened acceptance of roundabouts, which by 2014 had resulted in $9 billion in societal cost sav- ings.25 An ongoing FHWA RD&T case study is evaluating FHWA safety program implementation efforts in high-friction surface treatments. Freight and Operations ($14 million) Freight and operations RD&T objectives include improving the safety and efficiency of highway operations; understanding and facilitating the adop- tion of CAVs in highway operations; understanding and mitigating the operational effects of major traffic disruptions; and better incorporating freight in highway planning, operations, and infrastructure investment. FHWA has numerous RD&T activities in freight and operations, includ- ing developing and delivering effective operations programs; development and dissemination of traffic analysis tools; developing guidance and best 20 SAE Levels of Automation. https://blog.ansi.org/2018/09/sae-levels-driving-automation-j- 3016-2018/#gref. 21 Development of Crash Modification Factors Program. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/ development-crash-modification-factors-program/development-crash-modification-factors-dcmf. 22 Interactive Highway Design Model Overview. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/ Interactive-highway-safety-design-model/interactive-highway-safety-design-model-ihsdm. 23 Highway Safety Manual. http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx. 24 Safety Analyst Overview. http://www.safetyanalyst.org. 25 USDOT. 2018. FHWA Research and Technology Evaluation Program. https://www.fhwa. dot.gov/publications/research/randt/evaluations/18034/18034.pdf.

44 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION practices in Active Transportation Demand Management and Integrated Corridor Management; targeted research and technology transfer on arte- rial traffic management and signaling systems; R&D on CAVs, including impacts on freight operations; RD&T on management of road weather, disruption and incidents, and work zone safety; RD&T on freight data, op- erations, tools such as the widely used Freight Analysis Framework;26 and planning and R&D on truck size and weight issues27 impacting highway design and operations. Partners include state DOTs, MPOs, local agencies, transportation associations and professional societies, and private systems developers. In this area of RD&T, FHWA classifies 65 percent of funding as sup- porting applied research, 20 percent for development, and 15 percent for technology transfer. FHWA RD&T case study evaluations found that FHWA’s R&D in adaptive signal control technologies directly supported the development of one-quarter of the systems available in the market today and that FHWA’s deployment efforts sped their adoption. The evaluation also found that Traffic Incident Management training offered in the two metropolitan areas studied contributed to reduced secondary crashes at incident sites and reduced roadway clearance times following incidents. Planning and Environment ($12.5 million) The objectives of RD&T addressing planning, environmental, and real es- tate topics are to accelerate project delivery through improved management of the environmental review process, support performance-based planning by state DOTs and MPOs, improve the models relied on in state DOT and MPO plans, and integrate resilience, sustainability, and multimodal con- nectivity into the planning process.28 Specific RD&T activities to meet these objectives include development and support of tools such as Planning and Environmental Linkages,29 which supports a collaborative and integrated approach to decision making; the Eco-Logical30 approach to environmen- tal and historical resource identification, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation; technical assistance and liaison on transportation projects with federal resource agencies; identification and dissemination of best practices in performance-based planning; provision of state-of-the-art models, tools, 26 Freight Analysis Framework. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf. 27 TRB. 2018. Special Report 328: Research to Support Evaluation of Truck Size and Weight Regulations. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25321. 28 FHWA. n.d. White Paper: Overview of FHWA RD&T Program. 29 Planning and Environmental Linkages. https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_ initiatives/PEL.aspx. 30 Eco-Logical Approach. https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_initiatives/eco- logical.aspx.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 45 and methods to enhance air quality and noise analyses; development and deployment of tools, techniques, strategies, and methodologies for assess- ing the sustainability and resiliency of transportation plans, projects, and programs; research on innovations in multimodal planning and design and provision of training materials; and technology transfer reflecting those in- novations. FHWA’s partners in these activities include state DOTs, MPOs, local agencies, transportation associations, and other federal agencies. Planning and Environment RD&T funding is allocated as follows: 56 percent to applied research, 24 percent to development, and 24 percent to technology transfer. Review of FHWA’s Planning and Environment Of- fice’s website highlights its extensive technology transfer efforts through development and dissemination of guidebooks and technical tools, as well as technical assistance to help state, local, and tribal governments develop transportation plans and projects consistent with federal planning and environmental regulations. Evaluation of the Eco-Logical approach as an RD&T case study found that FHWA support for this tool allowed agencies to pursue planned activities sooner and more comprehensively than before and led to more integrated planning across land use, transportation, and the environment.31 Policy ($8 million) FHWA describes the objectives of its Policy RD&T as informing “decisions concerning highway infrastructure investments, policies, and strategies at all levels of government by providing assessments of their impacts on the future condition and performance of our highways and transportation sys- tems, as well as the impacts of these investments on our broader national economy.” FHWA’s Policy Office is responsible for products used regu- larly by policy makers, practitioners, and researchers: the annual Highway Statistics series on highway extent, travel, funding, and investment;32 the “Conditions and Performance” report33 to Congress, as well as support for the models and data the report relies on, which provides estimates of future investments required to maintain the physical condition and capacity of highway infrastructure; and other important datasets and national surveys described next. Key RD&T activities include updating and refining the models used in the “Conditions and Performance” report; research, model development, and technical assistance in benefit-cost analysis; analysis and forecasting of travel demand; research and analysis of priced and tolled traffic lanes; development and management of the National Performance 31 USDOT. 2018. FHWA Research and Technology Evaluation Program. https://www.fhwa. dot.gov/publications/research/randt/evaluations/18034/18034.pdf. 32 Highway Statistics Series. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm. 33 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2015cpr.

46 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION Management Research Dataset and the Highway Performance Monitoring System;34 generation of the monthly Traffic Volume Trends report;35 devel- oping the sample and data collection for the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS);36 and researching, developing, and applying improved data collection techniques. FHWA’s Policy RD&T program also collaborates with, and gathers information from, highway agencies in other developed nations.37 The Policy Office partners with state DOTs, academia, and with other FHWA offices, federal agencies, and highway agencies in other countries. Of the $8 million allocated for Policy, FHWA allocates 70 percent to applied research, 20 percent to development, and 10 percent to technol- ogy transfer. An RD&T case study evaluation of the NHTS, partly funded through the Policy RD&T budget and partly by the Bureau of Transporta- tion Statistics, found that the data are cited and relied on widely in policy documents and other reports in transportation and non-transportation fields.38 Exploratory Advanced Research ($6 million) As noted by FHWA, “the Exploratory Advanced Research program (EAR) conducts higher-risk, longer-term research with the potential for dramatic breakthroughs in surface transportation.”39 The entire $6 million avail- able for this program is allocated to research that is more exploratory than is typical of other FHWA applied research, although the program has supported development of concepts and technologies that may ultimately advance beyond the prototype stage. Although the topics explored are more conceptual than the norm, they are, nonetheless, mostly applications- oriented. Areas of inquiry span a wide range of topics: intelligent transporta- tion systems and operations, including connected and automated vehicles; potential breakthroughs in materials science; human behavior and travel choices; and technologies for assessing system performance (e.g., infrastruc- ture condition, traffic flow, environmental impacts of highway infrastructure 34 Highway Performance Monitoring System. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/ hpms.cfm. 35 Traffic Volume Trends. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/ tvt.cfm. 36 Note that FHWA and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics share in the cost of the NHTS. For information about the survey, see National Highway Travel Survey. https://nhts. ornl.gov. 37 International Programs. https://international.fhwa.dot.gov. 38 USDOT. 2018. FHWA Research and Technology Evaluation Program. https://www.fhwa. dot.gov/publications/research/randt/evaluations/18034/18034.pdf. 39 USDOT. 2016. p. 34.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 47 and operations).40 The EAR program meets the Congressional criterion for funding fundamental research. Some of the projects in recent years,41 how- ever, appear to be verging into technology readiness levels (TRLs) 5 and 6 rather than being concentrated in TRLs 2–4. Corporate and Communications ($7.5 million) Funds allocated to this category support activities such as RD&T oversight and coordination, strategic planning, laboratory facility maintenance, and FHWA communications and outreach. FHWA allocates 68 percent of these funds to applied research and 32 percent to technology transfer. Applied research funds support sustain- ing the 16 laboratories at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC); participation in pooled-fund projects42 with state DOTs; part- nerships with national highway research laboratories in other nations; and oversight of FHWA’s ongoing research and technology evaluation of specific R&D initiatives cited in previous sections. FHWA also provides funding to support the technical committees of highway experts and stakehold- ers managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), as well as the TRB annual meeting. Funding for technology transfer includes publication and dissemination of FHWA research reports; maintenance of numerous FHWA webpages; and publication of the Public Roads magazine. TFHRC is a unique national resource; its labs support important expertise and research in materials, hydraulics, structures, pavements, operations, safety, NDE, and other areas. Support for TRB’s technical committees and annual meeting sustains the nation’s largest annual gathering devoted to sharing and disseminating the results of transportation research. Support for TRB’s extensive bibliographic databases of ongoing and published research make transportation research information readily accessible to policy makers, researchers, and practitioners alike. FHWA publications, websites, and funding are diffusing information about, and supporting innovation, across the wide spectrum of highway activities at the state and local level. 40 FHWA. 2018. EAR Program Research Results—Updated Through 2018. FHWA- HRT-18-066. December. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/ear/18068/18068. pdf. 41 See project summaries in EAR Program Research Results—Updated Through 2018, cited above, and the TRLs discussed in Chapter 2. 42 Transportation Pooled-Fund projects are administered by FHWA, which establishes a mechanism whereby states pool funds with each other and/or with FHWA to address common problems. Examples are provided in Chapter 4 about the Transportation Pooled-Fund Program. For details about the program, see https://highways.dot.gov/opportunities-and-partnerships/ opportunities/transportation-pooled-fund-program.

48 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) ($2 million) As noted by FHWA, “the SBIR program is a highly competitive, awards- based program that encourages domestic small businesses to engage in research and development addressing high priority research areas within USDOT.”43 FHWA classifies SBIR funds as supporting applied research, although they could also be classified as development, as many of the small businesses that win awards appear to be testing concepts, proto- types, and applications at TRL stages 6 and 7, just short of being ready for full-scale demonstration. For example, past successful grantees have used high-resolution cameras and laser counters to automate counts of pedestrians and cyclists; Wi-Fi sensors for passive vehicle detection and travel time monitoring; technologies to count commercial motor vehicle traffic; and smartphone apps integrated with pedestrian traffic signals, all of which appear to be testing full-scale prototypes in the laboratory or field.44 (The National Academies has conducted a series of evaluations for Congress of the SBIR programs of other major federal RD&T agencies, but not USDOT’s.) HRD and TIDP Core RD&T Resource Allocation In the FHWA 2017–2018 Modal Research Plan, FHWA estimated that 62 percent of HRD and TIDP core funds were allocated to applied research, 22 percent to development, and 16 percent to deployment (the latter of which could include a wide range of activities including pilot tests, technology transfer, technical assistance, guidance documents, manuals, dissemination, and training and education). Based on the descriptions of HRD activities in the Annual Modal Research Plan and in the FHWA white paper provided to the committee that describes the HRD program in greater detail, it appears that more of HRD RD&T is devoted to the deployment stage of the innovation cycle than estimated by FHWA. In the white paper provided to the commit- tee, FHWA lists more than 200 discrete areas of HRD RD&T activities focused on specific issues, products, and services across 12 RD&T catego- ries. Many of these activities fit in multiple innovation stages (they could include applied research as well as technical assistance, for example). In order to provide quantitative estimates, these 200 discrete areas were coded in terms of how they were described to include applied research, development, testing, or technology transfer (in some cases these activities span multiple categories). FHWA estimates that 62 percent of its funding 43 USDOT. 2016. p. 76. 44 SBIR Success Stories. https://www.volpe.dot.gov/work-with-us/small-business- innovation-research/sbir-success-stories.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 49 is allocated to applied research. Based on our coding of research activi- ties, 59 percent of FHWA’s RD&T activities can be categorized as applied research. FHWA estimates that 22 percent of its funding is allocated to development, whereas it appears that 34 percent of FHWA’s RD&T ac- tivities, as described, include development. FHWA allocates 16 percent of funding to technology; however, 37 percent of RD&T activities appear to include this category. In the deployment category, 20 percent of RD&T activities are providing technical guidance documents of some kind, 10 percent are providing technical assistance, 10 percent are providing a technical tool of some kind to practitioners, and 12 percent include some element of training and education (these percentages are not additive because individual activities could include more than one dimension of deployment). HRD and TIDP Core Program Summary Observations 1. HRD and TIDP core funds are allocated across the full innova- tion cycle. As classified by FHWA, of the $106 million of HRD and TIDP funds in this category (not counting the deployment programs discussed separately below), applied research receives 62 percent funding, development receives 22 percent, and technology transfer receives 16 percent. a. Some of the applied research might be better classified as devel- opment or deployment activities. Much of the applied research is practical and oriented toward developing guidance, tools, and technical assistance to advance the state of practice. This is all understandable given the needs of highway practitioners. Even so, there is little evidence of exploratory research that might be leading to future rounds of innovation. The entire $6 million in EAR funding in this category represents only 5 percent of funding described in this section. b. HRD funds have been applied to evaluate major highway RD&T activities to improve the research process itself and make deployment strategies more effective. These valuable as- sessments, however, are limited in extent. Only 16 RD&T ini- tiatives have been evaluated, or are undergoing evaluation, out of the hundreds of RD&T activities FHWA has under way or deployed in recent years. The limited extent of such evaluations may be due to a shortage of resources dedicated specifically to this purpose. 2. FHWA RD&T is strategically organized around groups of re- lated RD&T activities aimed toward addressing a specific set of objectives.

50 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION 3. HRD activities are developed and delivered in collaboration with the states, other federal agencies, governments, and private enti- ties. More than 80 percent of HRD RD&T activities identify state DOTs as partners. 4. HRD-TIDP core activities are developing and fostering innovations, including those specifically identified by Congress. For example, the RD&T activities described above are specifically helping states and MPOs develop performance plans and meet performance measure- ment goals established by Congress in MAP-21 and the FAST Act. 5. There are many different programs within HRD-TIDP (12 different programmatic categories and more than 200 discrete RD&T activi- ties within HRD alone). This diversity is not surprising given the im- portance of highway transportation to the economy and society and the many issues of concern about highways. It appears from these many activities, however, that HRD-TIDP core funds risk being spread thinly across a broad array of topics. (The next chapter provides examples of how FHWA and state DOTs combine funds through pooled-fund projects and conduct complementary research in areas of mutual interest; these collaborations help address funding shortfalls.) Strategic Deployment Programs ($27.5 million) FHWA supports a group of technology transfer programs funded through TIDP that facilitate the deployment of innovation by the states, MPOs, and local governments. All of the funding is readily classified as technology transfer activities to support deployment of innovation. Table 3-2 summa- rizes the funding for these programs. TABLE 3-2 Classification of Strategic Deployment Fundsa Strategic Deployment FY 2017 Authorized Funds ($ millions) Applied Research Development Technology Transfer EDC 8.0 8.0 STIC 6.0 6.0 AID Demos 12.0 12.0 Accelerating Market Readiness 1.5 1.5 Total 27.5 27.5 NOTE: AID = Accelerated Innovation Deployment; EDC = Every Day Counts; FY = Fiscal Year; STIC = State Transportation Innovation Council. a USDOT. 2016. Annual Modal Research Plans 2017: Federal Highway Administration. https://www.transportation.gov/administrations/assistant-secretary-research-and-technology/ federal-highway-administration-fhwa.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 51 Every Day Counts (EDC) EDC, allocated $7.5 million in authorized funds, works through state DOTs and industry associations to identify and implement proven innova- tions. FHWA encourages innovation through the EDC process, whereby states select and make commitments to adopt specific, proven innovations and then FHWA assists them with implementation. Example technologies promoted through the program cover a wide range of areas, such as: • More accurately characterizing geotechnical conditions before con- struction through available, underutilized technologies;45 • More accurate estimates of the depths and velocities of river flows around bridge piers and foundations through advanced hydrologic models;46 • Improved traffic flow through signalized intersections using auto- mated traffic signal performance measures;47 • Improved safety by applying tools developed by FHWA that allow engineers to better estimate the crash-reduction benefits of alterna- tive designs and improvements to highways;48 and • Accelerating project delivery by integrating National Environmen- tal Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental permitting through concurrent reviews by permitting agencies.49 At the time of this writing in May 2019, since its inception in 2011 the EDC program has promoted 43 specific innovations. Every state has adopted at least 14 of these innovations and some states have adopted 30.50 Although the various rounds of innovation promoted through EDC do not appear to have been formally evaluated, FHWA does monitor and report on the adoption of innovations, and grant recipients self-report on benefits in 45 Advanced Geotechnical Methods. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/ edc_5/geotech_methods.cfm. 46 Collaborative Hydraulics. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc_5/ change2.cfm. 47 Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/ everydaycounts/edc_4/atspm.cfm. 48 Data Driven Safety Analysis. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/ edc_4/ddsa.cfm. 49 Integrating NEPA and Permitting. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/ edc_4/nepa.cfm. 50 About Every Day Counts. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/about- edc.cfm.

52 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION terms of financial and time savings, increased safety, and improved quality and durability.51 EDC is a concerted effort to promote proven innovations and move them into practice more broadly. EDC’s principal contribution is in funding and organizing efforts by state DOTs to choose innovations, make commit- ments to adopt them, and put them into practice. State Transportation Innovation Councils (STICs) This program, allocated $6 million annually of authorized funds, provides grants to states “to bring together public and private transportation stake- holders to evaluate innovations and spearhead their deployment.”52 The STIC process complements EDC’s strategy of making state DOTs, and other public and private members of the STICs, the decision makers about which innovations to adopt. Accelerating Market Readiness Allocated $1.5 million annually in authorized funds, this activity supports analyses of promising potential innovations in terms of their market readi- ness by matching promising innovations with transportation organizations interested in pilot testing them. Although the funding level is modest, this project is addressing an important gap. For example, a management pro- cess evaluation of the efforts to implement products developed through the Second Strategic Highway Research Program determined that some of the many innovations developed were not quite ready for implementation and that products that depended on information technologies were sometimes based on out-of-date software. A specific activity to systematically assess the readiness of innovations for implementation before making the substan- tial effort to support their deployment appears to be a useful component of FHWA’s technology transfer activities. Accelerated Innovation Deployment (AID) Demonstration Program Authorized in Section 503(c)(2)(B), and allocated $12 million annually in authorized funds, the AID Demonstration Program provides grants of up to $1 million to incentivize grantees to adopt a proven innovation, including those promoted through EDC that the recipient agency has not yet adopted. 51 FHWA. 2017. Every Day Counts—Significant Impacts. August. FHWA-17-CAI-010. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/reports/edc-significant_impacts.pdf. 52 State-Based Innovation Deployment Approach. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/ stic/deployment.cfm.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 53 Specific funding such as this helps overcome the risk aversion public agen- cies have about trying something new, as described in Chapter 2. Projects include activities eligible under Title 23, and recent examples include use of slide-in bridge construction technology to reduce the time to replace bridge superstructures and high-friction surface treatments to enhance safety;53 ap- plication of UHPC to accelerate construction and extend pavement service life; diverging diamond interchanges to improve throughput and safety;54 and implementing adaptive signal control systems to improve traffic flow.55 FHWA requires grant recipients to write a report within 6 months of proj- ect completion that documents the benefits and lessons learned.56 Only a few reports are available from the 84 grants posted as of May 2019, some of which are preliminary but still informative.57 Lack of more complete reporting to date, however, is limiting the effectiveness of this program because the sharing of experience is critical to making the case about the effectiveness of the innovations and encouraging their use more broadly. Increased Federal Share of Projects Congress, in 23 USC 120(c)(3), has allowed federal-aid recipients to receive a larger share of federal funds for capital improvements than the typical 80 percent when the recipient introduces an innovative product or service.58 The criteria that apply are similar to those for the AID demonstration grants. This provision provides yet another incentive for states to over- come risk aversion and experiment with innovation. A few states ( Arizona, Kentucky, North Dakota, and Vermont) have used these incentives fre- quently to apply innovations. Strategic Deployment Programs Summary Observations 1. FHWA’s deployment programs collectively represent $27.5 million annually in technology transfer/implementation activities that are focused on the delivery end of the innovation cycle. 53 AID Demonstration Program Factsheet. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/grants/ edc4_aiddemo_factsheet.pdf. 54 Diverging Diamond Interchanges. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/innovative/ crossover/brochures/ddi. 55 AID Demonstration Projects. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/grants/projects. 56 FHWA. 2016. Notice of Funding Opportunity for Accelerated Innovation Demonstration. Fed- eral Register. 81 FR 60403. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/01/2016-21063/ notice-of-funding-opportunity-for-accelerated-innovation-deployment-demonstration. 57 AID Demonstration Projects. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/grants/projects. 58 Increased Federal Share for Project Level Innovation. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ innovation/resources/increased_federal_share.

54 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION 2. The deployment strategy being employed through EDC and STIC, which encourages state DOTs and their partners to select products to deploy and make commitments to do so, is effective at fostering deployment of innovation. 3. Devoting a larger share of deployment funds to evaluating TRLs of proposed innovations before they are deployed may be a prudent strategy. 4. Evaluation research could select a sample of products being imple- mented in order to assess how well they are meeting their objec- tives. Not only could such a feedback loop serve to improve on the implementability of the innovations themselves, it would inde- pendently document the actual outcomes and benefits of FHWA’s deployment efforts. Congressionally Designated Programs ($80 million) In the FAST Act, Congress required FHWA to set aside $80 million annually for two programs: the Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives (STSFA) program ($20 million annually) and the Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment (ATCMTD) program ($60 million annually, of which $21 million is provided from the ITS research program, discussed later). The $39 million of the funding for ATCMTD pro- gram is provided from the HRD and TIDP authorized programs. In addition, Congress requires FHWA to allocate $12 million of its TIDP funds for the Accelerated Deployment of Pavement Technologies effort, as described below. (The $12 million for this program is reported here for completeness, but the activities and funding are incorporated in the HRD-TIDP core programs dis- cussed above.) Table 3-3 summarizes the funding for these programs. Surface Transportation Systems Funding Alternatives ($20 million) FHWA classifies the entire funding for this program as a deployment activ- ity. STSFA provides matching grants to states to demonstrate “user-based alternative revenue mechanisms that utilize a user fee structure to maintain the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.”59 Congress’s au- thorization requires funding recipients to evaluate issues associated with alternative user-based revenue mechanisms such as interoperability, public acceptance, privacy protection, role of third-party vendors, equity, ease of compliance, and reliability and security of the technologies employed. As of early 2019, FHWA had made awards to several states, and consortia of states, for pilot tests of various aspects of mileage-based road user charges 59 FAST Act, Section 6020(a). https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr22/BILLS-114hr22enr.pdf.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 55 (RUCs) (see Annex 3-A). Initial reports from the states indicate that they are conducting substantial applied research, pilot testing, and demonstra- tions of technologies.60 STSFA is bringing much wider attention to the importance and po- tential of RUCs, albeit states such as California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington were exploring road user charges on a smaller scale, and with a mix of state and federal resources, before the STSFA program.61 Oregon’s ex- ploration of the concept dates back nearly two decades. The STSFA program is certainly responsive to FHWA’s customers because of states’ keen interest in finding a supplement to, or replacement for, motor fuel taxes as the main source of highway program revenues. Although FHWA classifies these activi- ties as demonstration, the emphasis on pilot testing different approaches and analysis of technical feasibility, survey research about alternate technologies with test subjects and the public, and policy analysis indicates that substantial components could be classified as applied research and pilot testing. 60 Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Biennial Report. https://ops.fhwa. dot.gov/fastact/stsfa/reports/stsfarpt19/index.htm. 61 See examples from California and Oregon. California: https://californiaroadcharge pilot.com/final-report; Oregon: https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs/RUF/IP-Road%20 Usage%20Evaluation%20Book%20WEB_4-26.pdf. TABLE 3-3 Classification of Congressionally Designated Program Fundsa Congressionally Designated Programs FY 2017 Authorized Funds ($ millions) Applied Research Development Technology Transfer STSFA 20.0 20.0 ATCMTDb 60.0 60.0 AIDPTc Total 80.0 80.0 NOTE: AIDPT = Accelerated Implementation and Deployment of Pavement Technology; ATCMTD = Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment; FHWA = Federal Highway Administration; FY = Fiscal Year; HRD = Highway Research and Development program; ITS = Intelligent Transportation Systems; STSFA = Surface Transporta- tion System Funding Alternatives; TIDP = Technology and Innovation Deployment Program. a USDOT. 2016. Annual Modal Research Plans 2017: Federal Highway Administration. https://www.transportation.gov/administrations/assistant-secretary-research-and-technology/ federal-highway-administration-fhwa. b FHWA transferred $20 million from HRD, $19 million from TIDP, and $21 million from ITS to meet the congressionally required $60 million authorized funding level for ATCMTD. The amounts shown in Tables 3-1 and 3-4 do not include these funds. c Congress required that FHWA devote $12 million of authorized funding annually to AIDPT. FHWA supported AIDPT from the funding of various HRD and TIDP core activities. This funding is included in the amounts shown in Table 3-1.

56 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION Advanced Transportation Congestion Management Technologies Deployment ($60 million) FHWA classifies the funding from the HRD, TIDP, and ITS programs for this program as applying to the deployment stage. ATCMTD is a grant program (50 percent federal share) to encourage deployment of ITS and other technologies to improve operations and safety, but eligible activity also includes “infrastructure maintenance, monitoring, and condition as- sessment,” “system performance data collection, analysis, and dissemina- tion,” and “electronic pricing and payment systems.” FHWA is encouraging proposals in multimodal integrated corridor management; installation of connected vehicle technologies at intersections and pedestrian crossings; integrated fare collection and payment systems across vendors and modes; and other applications. The funds are awarded in amounts up to $12 mil- lion across 5 to 10 recipients annually. Through early 2019, grants totaling $163.3 million have been awarded. Little reporting on results is available to date, perhaps because of the complexity and systems integration require- ments of the funded projects. FHWA has developed a useful template for grant recipients to use in reporting on the results of their investments. Accelerated Implementation and Deployment of Pavement Technology (AIDPT) In the FAST Act, Congress specifies that $12 million be spent annually for AIDPT, which is authorized in 23 USC 503(c)(3). FHWA classifies all of these funds as supporting technology transfer, which appears appropriate. The $12 million for AIDPT is incorporated into the ongoing HRD and TIDP core activities that support deployment of pavement technologies. FHWA reports annually on its efforts to share information about innova- tive pavement designs, materials, and testing techniques through a variety of outreach efforts, including webinars, videos, mobile testing vans, par- ticipation in a large pooled-fund study with the states, and development and distribution of technical guidance to asset owners and contractors.62 Congressionally Designated Programs Summary Observations 1. Although FHWA classifies all of these funds as technology transfer, it appears that substantial components of STSFA funding could be classified as applied research and pilot testing. 62 FHWA. Accelerated Implementation and Deployment of Pavement Technologies: 2017–2018 Annual Report. FHWA HIF-18-058. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pubs/ hif18058.pdf.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 57 2. Congress requires grantees to document how funds are used, de- scribe the lessons learned, and document the benefits of the grants. Past demonstration programs have suffered from lack of reporting and careful assessments of the lessons learned from them because of how they were structured.63 Moreover, funds distributed as grants give FHWA less ability to insist on specific deliverables, such as evaluations by grantees of their projects. The STSFA pro- gram, made up of pilot projects seeking to expand awareness of alternative funding methods for highways, has built-in incentives to report on the outcomes of the pilots. FHWA has developed a reporting template for ATCMTD that is well structured to elicit such information, but there is scant reporting on the results and effectiveness of the grants at the time of this writing. Reporting is also spotty in the AID Demonstration program described in the previous section. A recent evaluation of the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction program recommended use of a more rigorous approach to monitoring and evaluating demonstrations of new and innovative materials and techniques.64 Such an approach, which would entail more advance planning, objective-setting, and recordkeeping, would increase the cost of demonstration projects relative to relying on self-reports from grantees, but also provide better assurance of documentation and dissemination of the results. It may be possible to reduce these added costs by relying on evalua- tion of a sample of demonstration projects rather than all of them. TRAINING AND EDUCATION FHWA’s training and education programs are authorized at $24 million annually from FY 2016 through FY 2020. Eligible activities include the National Highway Institute (NHI); Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) and Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP); and other educa- tion and training programs. National Highway Institute NHI receives $8.4 million in authorized funding annually for the training and education courses offered through NHI. Hundreds of courses are offered 63 See, for example, TRB. 2019. Special Report 330: Performance of Bridges That Received Funding Under the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program. Transporta- tion Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. https://www.nap.edu/ catalog/25358. 64 TRB. 2019. pp. 74–77.

58 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION in either concentrated, in-person, instructor-led formats ranging from 1 to 5 days or over the Web through live webcasts or self-paced training using re- corded webcasts. Courses extending over multiple days can cost up to $1,500 per participant. Short duration courses and Web-based training, particularly those involving ITS, are often offered without charge. State DOTs and other asset owners can host instructor-led training sessions and workshops to mini- mize the travel associated with training. The topics covered range over 18 subject areas, including many innovations promoted by FHWA. Local and Tribal Technical Assistance Programs LTAP and TTAP together receive $10.6 million annually in authorized funds. LTAP centers, intended to serve local government asset owners, offer training, technical assistance, and technology transfer through 51 centers located in the 50 states and Puerto Rico.65 Federal funding provides a 50 percent share of funds for LTAP centers. State Planning and Research funds can be used for the local match. LTAP centers are often hosted by state uni- versities, including many University Transportation Centers (UTC) funded through the UTC program, as discussed in Chapter 4. FHWA offers up to 100 percent funding for the TTAP program, which was recently restruc- tured to have a single center provide virtual centers focused on Web-based training on Asset and Data Management, Planning and Program Manage- ment, Project Delivery, Safety, Operations, and Maintenance.66 Other Programs A total of $3.4 million in authorized funds is available through other train- ing and education activities. These funds support • The Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Pro- gram, which awards fellowships to students pursuing degrees in transportation-related disciplines.67 • The Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Education Program, which improves the preparation of pre-college students, particularly women and minorities, in science, technology, engi- neering, and mathematics (STEM) through curriculum develop- ment and other activities related to transportation.68 65 Local Technical Assistance Program. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/clas/ltap. 66 Tribal Technical Assistance Program. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/clas/ttap. 67 Post-Secondary Education. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovativeprograms/centers/ workforce_dev/post_secondary_education.aspx. 68 K–12 Education and Training. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovativeprograms/centers/ workforce_dev/k_12.aspx.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 59 • Center for Workforce Development,69 which leads programs and initiatives that enhance workforce development, ability, and diver- sity in key transportation sectors and disciplines through ° Assisting State Transportation Agencies and others with devel- oping and enhancing on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs for the highway construction industry, and ° Support to five Regional Surface Transportation Workforce Development Centers. Each Center supplies the people, plan- ning, resources, and coordination necessary to address priori- ties unique to its region. Training and Education Summary Observations 1. Training and education is an important facet of the innovation process. Many of the innovations that FHWA is promoting—such as the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model, ITS technologies and applications (described in the next section), complex forms of project financing, and planning and environmental software and models—appear to require training before state DOT and local agency staff could apply them as designed and intended. As state DOTs have downsized their staffs due to constrained funding, they have come to rely increasingly on private contractors for technical work formerly carried out by their own technical staffs. These con- tractors may also require training on the application of innovations that are being promoted by FHWA and that demand specialized techniques and skills. 2. In the FAST Act, Congress authorizes $24 million annually for training and education. This funding clearly fits in the broad set of technology transfer activities carried out by FHWA. These efforts span K–12, through post-secondary education, to the employed workforce itself. They help develop the human capital necessary to understand and employ innovation. The question is whether these funds are adequate to meet the human capital need. The Census Bureau estimates that in 2017 state DOTs had 204,000 highway employees and local governments had 265,000.70 The total FHWA funds available for training and education work out to about $50 69 Professional/Practitioner Development. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovativeprograms/ centers/workforce_dev/professionals.aspx. 70 U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. Government Employment and Payroll Tables. https://www. census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/apes/annual-apes.html.

60 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION per state and local transportation employee.71 Of course, not all state and local highway employees require training each year. If 5 percent of employees require training each year, then about $1,000 in federal funding is supporting each employee requiring training. The figures cited do not include the growing workforce of private contractors who may also need investments in training. Additional resources for training are available through states (including use of federal capital funds for training), through the ITS program, discussed next, and universities, as described in the next chapter. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Unlike the programs described previously, ITS is not managed directly by FHWA. This multimodal program is managed by the USDOT’s JPO. (Al- though spanning all modes of surface transportation, the ITS program is nonetheless primarily focused on highway transportation.) The following seven sections describe the overall structure of the ITS program and the content of each of the six program categories managed by ITS JPO. Table 3-4 shows FHWA’s classification of the funding in each category as applied research, development, or technology transfer. 71 Dividing the $24 million authorized for training and education by 472,000 state and local agency employees. TABLE 3-4 Classification of ITS Fundsa Intelligent Transportation Systems FY 2017 Authorized Funds ($ millions) Applied Research Development Technology Transfer Connected Vehicles 30.3 30.3 Automated Vehicles 4.0 4.0 Emerging Technology 18.0 18.0 Interoperability 6.1 6.1 Enterprise Data 3.4 3.4 Accelerating Deployment 15.3 14.3 1.0 SBIR 2.0 2.0 Total 79.0 78.0 0 1.0 NOTE: FY = Fiscal Year; ITS = Intelligent Transportation Systems; SBIR = Small Business Innovative Research. a ITS-JPO Annual Modal Research Plan, September 20, 2016, p. 4. https://www.its.dot.gov/a bout/ITS-JPO_AMRP.pdf.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 61 ITS Program Structure USDOT’s ITS 2015–2019 strategic plan describes the structure of USDOT’s ITS program in terms of two primary strategic priorities, six program cat- egories, and five strategic themes.72 The strategic priorities are connected vehicle (CV) implementation and advancing automation. The program categories are: • Connected vehicles • Automation • Emerging capabilities • Enterprise data • Interoperability • Accelerating deployment The program categories are the basis for the annual allocation of the program’s authorized spending as described below. The ITS Strategic Plan represents the interrelationships of the program categories in a diagram (see Figure 3-1) illustrating that connected vehicles, automation, and emerging capabilities are categories of technologies; interoperability and enterprise data are fundamental requirements for all technologies; and accelerating deployment is the common objective of all of the program’s activities. 72 ITS JPO. 2014. ITS Strategic Plan 2015–2019. U.S. Department of Transportation. ITS JPO-14-145. https://www.its.dot.gov/strategicplan.pdf. FIGURE 3-1 ITS JPO program categories. SOURCE: ITS JPO, 2014, p. 14.

62 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION The plan describes qualitatively the relative emphasis on research, development, and adoption in each program category over the 5-year plan- ning period.73 In connected vehicles, the primary emphasis is on adoption, with development as the secondary emphasis and research as the third. This allocation is consistent with the strategic priority of connected vehicle implementation. In the automation category, the emphasis is reversed: research is primary, development is secondary, and adoption is third, con- sistent with the strategic objective of advancing automation. The five strategic themes identified in the strategic plan state the ITS program’s intended benefits and outcomes: enable safer vehicles and road- ways, enhance mobility, limit environmental impacts, promote innovation, and support transportation system information sharing.74 The plan also lists potential benefits of each program category in similarly broad terms. The 2015 FAST Act authorized continuation of the ITS program at $100 million per year, the same funding level as in MAP-21. In the FAST Act, Congress did not change the activities eligible for funding under the ITS program, but added an additional program goal—enhancement of the national freight system (FAST Act Section 6005). Funding allocations and short-term milestones for the program categories are described in the ITS JPO 2017–2018 Annual Modal Research Plan75 and in the FHWA FY 2020 budget request.76 Connected Vehicles ($30.3 million) The CV RD&T program covers a wide array of activities: rulemaking on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)-connected vehicle safety regulation; vehicle-to-infrastructure guidance; system devel- opment for certifying vehicles necessary for connected vehicle operations; promotion of more than 60 connected vehicle applications; and large-scale pilot studies of connected vehicle applications. The three subsections below describe the three current connected vehicle pilot deployments and other activities funded under the connected vehicles program category. 73 ITS JPO. 2014. p. 15. 74 ITS JPO. 2014. pp. 6–7. 75 ITS JPO. 2016. United States Department of Transportation Annual Modal Research Plans: Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office (JPO) Fiscal Year 2017– 2018. Sept. 26. https://www.its.dot.gov/about/ITS JPO_AMRP.pdf. 76 FHWA. 2019a. FHWA FY 2020 Budget. https://www.transportation.gov/mission/budget/ fhwa-cj-fy-2020-estimates.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 63 Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment Program USDOT announced in 2014 a program to competitively award coopera- tive agreements to governments for pilot deployments of connected vehicle technologies. Multiple awards were contemplated, demonstrating diverse applications and geographic settings. In September 2015, awards were an- nounced for three pilots77: • New York City: The New York City DOT is to install vehicle-to- vehicle (V2V) communication devices in up to 8,000 vehicles op- erating in midtown Manhattan, including taxis, transit buses, and city-owned vehicles, and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) roadside units at 350 intersections in Manhattan and Brooklyn. The system is intended to reduce collision frequency and improve speed and red light compliance. • Tampa: The lead agency is the Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority. V2V devices are to be installed in 1,600 private vehicles, 10 buses, and 10 streetcars; 500 pedestrian participants are to receive a smartphone app; and V2I devices are to be installed at 40 intersections. The goals are to avoid collisions and the result- ing congestion on a downtown expressway and to provide signal priority and collision avoidance for buses and collision avoidance for streetcars. The smartphone app requests a walk signal when a pedestrian approaches an intersection and warns drivers of a pedestrian in a crosswalk. • Wyoming: The Wyoming DOT is to provide V2V for 400 vehicles that regularly use I-80, including state vehicles and at least 150 commercial trucks, and install 75 V2I roadside units on I-80. The goals of the applications are collision avoidance, distress notifica- tion, and downstream road condition information (e.g., about weather, work zones, or incidents). Reduction of weather-related incidents involving commercial vehicles is a specific objective. All pilot projects use dedicated short range communications (DSRC) 5.9 GHz for communications, which represents a segment of frequency spectrum that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set aside for public emergency and safety communications and upon which interoper- ability standards developed through the ITS program are based (see Annex 3-B for a discussion of the status of NHTSA DSRC 5.9 GHz rulemak- ing and FCC spectrum allocation). All of the pilots include independent 77 ITS JPO. n.d.a. Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment Program. https://www.its.dot.gov/ pilots/index.htm.

64 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION evaluation. USDOT planned the pilots as the next step toward CV deploy- ment following the 2011–2014 Ann Arbor test of V2V and V2I DSRC technology.78 Projected federal funding and total costs at the time of the awards were: New York City: $18.6 million federal/$23.5 million total; Tampa: $15.2 million federal/$19.1 million total; Wyoming: $4.4 fed- eral/$5.8 million total.79 The schedule calls for a concept development phase through September 2016, a design/build/test phase through April 2019, and a maintain/operate pilot phase through October 2020, followed by post-pilot operation of the systems.80 ITS JPO published a “lessons learned” report in December 2018 on the design/build/test phase, which concluded that the design/build test phase was wrapping up despite significant technical and non-technical chal- lenges, including “the still maturing state of key applications, a dynamic security credential management environment [described below], and chal- lenges in radio-frequency interference.”81 Other Connected Vehicle Program Activities Funding for the CV pilot deployments is $8 million of the $30 million an- nual authorized budget of the CV program category. Activities in the CV program category in addition to the pilots identified include the following82: • Continued development of the Security Credential Management System (SCMS), a security system to ensure the validity of infor- mation that ITS system users receive from other users, which was developed by USDOT in cooperation with industry.83 (SCMS is being used in the large-scale pilot deployments described above and in the Smart Cities Challenge program described below.) • Testing and documentation of a Systems Engineering Management Plan to guide development of V2V systems. 78 Bezzina, D., and J. Sayer. 2015. Safety Pilot Model Deployment: Test Conductor Team Report. NHTSA, June. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812171-safetypilot modeldeploydeltestcondrtmrep.pdf. 79 Pula, K. 2018. Connected Vehicle Technology: A Primer for the I‐70 Coalition and Stakeholders. I-70 Coalition. April, pp. 35–47. https://i70solutions.org/files/3315/2763/2612/ Connected_Vehicle_Technology_Capstone_Final.pdf. 80 ITS JPO. n.d.a. Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment Program. https://www.its.dot.gov/ pilots/index.htm. 81 Thompson, K. 2018. Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment Program: Driving Towards Deployment: Lessons Learned from the Design/Build/Test Phase. Dec. 13, p. 27. https://rosap. ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/37681. 82 ITS JPO. 2016. pp. 6–7. 83 ITS JPO. n.d.b. Security Credentials Management System. https://www.its.dot.gov/ resources/scms.htm.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 65 • Conduct of spectrum sharing testing, in cooperation with FCC, on the effect of sharing the DSRC band with non-ITS uses (e.g., Wi-Fi).84 • Demonstration of a prototype Heavy Vehicles V2V basic safety message (BSM) system. (The BSM is the standard data regarding the position and motion of the vehicle that trucks operating as con- nected vehicles transmit to each other.) The rate and form of CV deployment will depend critically on pending NHTSA regulatory decisions on whether to mandate CV communication devices in motor vehicles, as well as on possible future FCC actions on spectrum allocation for ITS (see Annex 3-B). Emerging Technologies ($18 million) The ITS JPO strategic plan describes the Emerging Technologies pro- gram category as research and development focusing on “future gen- erations of transportation systems … to seek, evaluate, and sometimes incubate emerging capabilities that demonstrate the potential to transform transportation.”85 Of the $18 million in authorized funding for the cat- egory in FY 2017, $15 million was devoted to the Smart City Challenge program, a component that appears to be aimed at adoption and deploy- ment of technology. The first subsection below describes the Smart City Challenge. The second subsection describes the Accessible Transportation Technologies Research Initiative, another program funded under Emerging Technologies. Smart City Challenge USDOT initiated the Smart City challenge in 2015 by inviting proposals from mid-sized cities for projects that would apply information technology to improve the safety and efficiency of passenger travel and goods move- ment. Columbus, Ohio, was selected as the winner of the competition from among 78 applications, and is slated to receive $40 million in federal 84 USDOT. 2017a. USDOT Spectrum Sharing Analysis Plan: Effects of Unlicensed- National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices on Dedicated Short-Range Communi- cations (DSRC). December. https://www.its.dot.gov/research_archives/connected_vehicle/pdf/ DSRC_Analysis_Planv4Dec2017.pdf. 85 ITS JPO. 2014. pp. 15, 20.

66 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION funds.86 USDOT reported that the demonstration would receive an addi- tional $100 million from private partners and other sources.87 Columbus projects receiving funding from the USDOT grant include a data manage- ment system; a CV system to include equipment on transit buses, city vehicles, and roadside units; an app to allow travelers to select itineraries across modes; an app to assist people with cognitive disabilities in navigat- ing the city bus system; event parking management, and others.88 Project deployments are expected to take place in 2019 and 2020.89 Accessible Transportation Technologies Research Initiative The Accessible Transportation Technologies Research Initiative is a joint program of FHWA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), ITS JPO, and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research to develop and implement methods for improving mobility op- tions for travelers with disabilities. Through the program, USDOT awarded six contracts totaling $6.2 million to universities and private-sector firms that had submitted proposals in response to a 2016 Broad Agency An- nouncement. Four contracts are for developing wayfinding and navigation services, one is for pre-trip and concierge services, and one is for a safe in- tersection crossing service. The work is expected to be completed in 2019.90 Accelerating Deployment ($15.3 million) The goal of the Accelerating Deployment program is to speed up the trans- formation of ITS research and prototypes into market-ready technologies that are commercially viable and adopted by the transportation community. The activities funded provide information and services to early adopters of 86 Four of the unsuccessful finalists were able to undertake parts of their Smart City Chal- lenge proposal projects through USDOT grants awarded in 2016; three through FHWA’s ATCMTD program (which is partially funded from the authorization for the ITS program); and one through an FTA grant. FHWA. 2017. FY 2016 Advanced Transportation and Con- gestion Management Technologies Deployment (ATCMTD) Project Awards. Last modified February 5, 2019. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/atcmtd/fy16awards/index.htm. USDOT. 2017b. What Comes Next. Updated April 28. https://www.transportation.gov/smartcity/ what-comes-next. 87 ITS JPO. 2016. p. 29. 88 City of Columbus. 2018. Smart Columbus: Project Management Plan for the Smart Columbus Demonstration Program: Final. USDOT. Feb. 1. https://smart.columbus.gov/ uploadedFiles/SCC-A-PMP-Final-Program%20Management%20Plan_1-30-18.pdf. 89 Smart Columbus. 2018. Our Path to the Future. https://smart.columbus.gov/projects. 90 USDOT. 2017c. U.S. Department of Transportation Announces Accessible Transportation Technologies Research Initiative Application Development Awards. Updated Sept. 12. https:// www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dot7117.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 67 ITS technology (state and local governments and private-sector firms) to support adoption and to aid the transition to large-scale deployment. Ser- vices include training, technical assistance, and development of communica- tions materials.91 The ITS Professional Capacity Building Program, working directly or through partnerships with other organizations, provides train- ing courses in ITS technology, including a series on ITS standards; course materials for instructors; and ITS webinar series for operating agencies and for universities. These activities fulfill the requirement in federal law that USDOT ensure that transportation officials have adequate knowledge of ITS and to develop a workforce capable of developing, operating, and maintaining ITS [23 USC 514(b)]. The Connected and Automated Vehicle Support Services program pro- vides operating agencies and equipment providers with technical assis- tance and equipment loans during deployments.92 Deployment technical assistance has been provided to participants in the CV Pilot Deployment program. The Accelerating Deployment program also supports research, in collaboration with the Volpe Center, to develop evaluation methods for use by operating agencies for understanding the costs, benefits, and financial and performance impacts of adoption of ITS technologies.93 Automated Vehicles ($3.95 million) The ITS JPO FY 2017–2018 Annual Modal Research Plan describes the objectives of the Automated Vehicles program category as defining the core elements and performance criteria for automation and testing automation in the Smart Cities and ATCMTD pilot deployments. Anticipated activities listed include preparing a roadmap for development of automated vehicle standards, developing safety requirements for automation features, research on platooning technology and safety, test track and over-the-road testing of automated vehicles, a naturalistic driving study,94 research on automated vehicle impacts on congestion and travel behavior, research on the effect of weather on automated vehicles, and testing of driverless shuttle vehicles.95 USDOT’s 2018 Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Auto- mated Vehicles 3.0 presents a comprehensive statement of federal policy 91 ITS JPO. 2016. pp. 22–23; ITS JPO. 2014. pp. 25–27. 92 ITS JPO. ITS Professional Capacity Building Program. https://www.pcb.its.dot.gov. 93 ITS JPO. 2016. pp. 22–23. See also ITS Evaluation. https://www.its.dot.gov/research_ archives/evaluation/evaluation_progress.htm. 94 Completed in 2018. Russell, S., M. Blanco, M., J. Atwood, W. Schaudt, V. Fitchett, and S. Tidwell S. 2018. Naturalistic Study of Level 2 Driving Automa tion Functions. NHTSA. November. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/ documents/812642_ naturalistic- study-of-level-2-driving-automation-functions.pdf. 95 ITS JPO. 2016. pp. 10–11, 41–42.

68 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION for automated vehicles.96 The document identifies research under way to implement the stated policies. For example, one of six USDOT automation principles is “U.S. DOT will modernize or eliminate outdated regulations that unnecessarily impede the development of automated vehicles or that do not address critical safety needs.”97 The document identifies an associated current research focus area: U.S. DOT identifies and develops strategies to remove unnecessary barriers to innovation, particularly barriers stemming from existing regulations. In order to identify and evaluate solutions, U.S. DOT employs research to establish safety baselines; supports cost-benefit analysis for rulemaking; develops and implements processes to make the government more agile.98 Automated Vehicles 3.0 also reports that USDOT is beginning research on the workforce impacts of automated vehicles, in collaboration with other federal agencies.99 Enterprise Data ($3.4 million) The Enterprise Data program category supports research to develop meth- ods to capture and organize high-volume, multi-source data streams from ITS deployments and ways to exploit the data for real-time system manage- ment, research, and evaluation. Such data systems are being implemented and tested in the CV pilot deployments and Smart City Challenge. The program includes demonstrating how data from ITS deployments can be used to support new transportation services, such as mobility on demand. Developing data systems that protect users’ privacy is a primary emphasis. The program includes developing facilities for data access and exchange for purposes of transportation system management and research.100 Interoperability ($6 million) Interoperability is the capability of ITS hardware and software in vehicles and in the infrastructure to communicate with each other and to function 96 USDOT. 2018a. Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0. Oct. 4. https://www.transportation.gov/av/3. 97 USDOT. 2018a. p. iv. 98 USDOT. 2018a. p. 13. 99 USDOT. 2018a. pp. x, 10. 100 ITS JPO. 2016. p. 16; and Anderson, C. 2015. U.S. Update—Connected Data Systems Program. Presentation at ITS World Congress, Bordeaux, Oct. 5–9. http://2doubmisw11am9rk1h2g49gq. wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/10/3_FOT-NET-CDS-Program-Data- Iniatiatives-Andersen.pdf.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 69 as a system. The interoperability ITS program category supports R&D activities in five technical areas101: • Architecture: frameworks for implementing ITS (e.g., a connected vehicles system) in a state, corridor, or metropolitan region; • Standards: to ensure interoperability and define minimum perfor- mance requirements of ITS technologies; • Certification testing: establishment of test procedures for ITS tech- nology and development of accreditation processes, in cooperation with other governments and with industry; • Cybersecurity: research to identify security risks to ITS installa- tions, to identify ways of mitigating risks, and to develop best practices and assessment methods for system operators; and • Human factors: research on how to effectively communicate safety information to drivers. These activities correspond to the provisions of the federal law es- tablishing the ITS program that USDOT is to “develop and maintain a national ITS architecture and supporting ITS standards and protocols;” that “the national ITS architecture and supporting ITS standards and pro- tocols shall promote interoperability among, and efficiency of, intelligent transportation systems and technologies;” and that “the Secretary shall support the development and maintenance of standards and protocols using the services of such standards development organizations as the Secretary determines to be necessary” (23 USC § 517(a)). USDOT’s 2018 policy statement Automated Vehicles 3.0 identifies working with other public- and private-sector entities to “establish performance-oriented, consensus-based, and voluntary standards and guidance for vehicle and infrastructure safety, mobility, and operations” as a USDOT role in trans- portation automation.102 Examples of research and development projects cited in the ITS JPO AMRP include103: • Development of detailed standards for CV vehicle systems; • Development of V2I standards; • Support for the NHTSA CV rulemaking through development of standards for V2V safety applications; 101 ITS JPO. n.d.c. Interoperability White Paper. https://www.its.dot.gov/research_areas/pdf/ WhitePaper_interoperability.pdf. 102 USDOT. 2018a. p. 5. 103 ITS JPO. 2016. pp. 20–21.

70 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION • Development of heavy vehicle cybersecurity best practices; and • Support for creation of an industry-based certification laboratory consortium to develop certification test procedures. Support for the CV pilot deployments and Smart City Challenge, as ini- tial implementations of standards compliant systems, has been an important component of the ITS program’s standards effort. Small Business Innovation Research ($2 million) The ITS program provides $2 million annually to match the contributions to the SBIR program made through HRD-TIDP core funds, as described above. ITS RD&T Summary Observations 1. The ITS program supports RD&T across the full innovation cycle. Other than the set-aside of ITS funds for the ATCMTD program, all ITS funding is classified by the ITS JPO as applied research. Even so, the major pilot projects (CVs, Smart Cities) include ini- tial deployment of proven technologies and some are intended to provide fully operational public services by the end of their terms. It appears that some ITS funding could reasonably be classified as development, pilot testing, and deployment. Based on its program description, the Emerging Technologies program could be funding fundamental research, but it appears that the substantial share of this program devoted to the Smart Cities pilots is devoted to ap- plied R&D and subsequent stages of the innovation process. Some ITS JPO RD&T funds are allocated for evaluation, both for inde- pendent evaluation of the large-scale pilot demonstrations and for smaller-scale applications as well. Prominent characteristics of the overall ITS program include the following: a. ITS JPO effort in supporting CV deployment as a safety mea- sure appears to be the most significant activity in terms of departmental priorities. b. Large-scale pilot projects, deployments, and demonstrations of ITS applications funded by cooperative agreements with state and local governments make up about 44 percent of spending. c. Standards development regarding interoperability, cybersecu- rity, and performance requirements is an essential element of

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 71 the ITS program for facilitating deployment, gaining the great- est benefits from the technology, and maintaining the U.S. competitive position in the global ITS products and services industries. d. The strategic plan does not specify guidelines for distinguish- ing public- and private-sector responsibilities in the develop- ment and testing of CV and AV technologies. (It identifies defining the federal role as a research question.) The outcome of the NHTSA proposed rule mandating CV devices on new motor vehicles will be an important test case: a rule mandat- ing inclusion of 5.9 GHz capability in new vehicles would be a strong government intervention guiding development and deployment, whereas deferral of a rule would allow the tech- nology to develop on a course determined by private industry and market decisions. (NHTSA rulemaking, of course, depends on whether FCC continues to protect the 5.9 GHz spectrum for transportation safety applications.) Regardless of how the public and private roles evolve, the public sector will retain a substantial responsibility for standards development and for developing and providing the roadside sensors and technolo- gies needed to communicate with vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users. CONCLUSIONS 3.1 Consistent with the requirements of Congress, FHWA, and ITS RD&T activities span the full innovation cycle. a. Almost 60 percent of FHWA’s/ITS JPO’s RD&T $312 million in annual authorized funding is allocated to applied research and development, although it appears that some of these funds could also be classified as pilot testing and technology transfer. b. FHWA and ITS JPO classifies 41 percent of their RD&T fund- ing as technology transfer, although it appears that share could be even larger based on how the program areas are described by FHWA and ITS JPO. The committee’s reading of the na- ture of the work funded in the R&D category, particularly the many guidance documents and guidebooks FHWA is develop- ing and extensive technical assistance FHWA and ITS JPO offers, suggests that the overall RD&T resource allocation could be more heavily, and appropriately, weighted toward technology transfer. c. FHWA and ITS JPO provide websites with extensive infor- mation about their RD&T activities and results and FHWA

72 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION funding supports the diffusion of knowledge about ongoing and published research. d. Very little of FHWA’s and ITS JPO’s research appears to fit the congressional criterion of including “fundamental long- term research.” The EAR program is exploring the potential of novel applications, but its funding ($6 million) is modest and represents but 3 percent of the FHWA RD&T funding described in this chapter. The ITS JPO Emerging Technologies program ($18 million) could be funding more fundamental re- search, but much of it appears to be devoted to applied R&D, pilot tests, and demonstrations. The apparent limited attention to the earliest stages of identifying new innovations raises ques- tions about the robustness of the pipeline of future innovations and whether devoting a larger share of FHWA and ITS JPO R&D funding on fundamental research would be appropriate and necessary to identify promising future innovations. e. FHWA and ITS JPO have notable examples of evaluation, but there appear to be opportunities for greater investment in this area. FHWA RD&T has an important initiative to conduct evaluations of specific RD&T initiatives, but no dedicated funding is set aside for this purpose. The ITS program has an ongoing evaluation activity, including the independent evalua- tion component of the large-scale CV pilot projects. Regarding demonstrations, as directed by Congress, FHWA is requir- ing annual reports of progress and documentation of lessons learned from the two large demonstration programs Congress authorized (STSFA and ATCMTD) as well as the smaller-scale AID Deployment program, but little reporting is available for review at this time and the assessments are self-reports rather than independent evaluations. This raises questions about whether the demonstration programs should be (a) designed around strategic objectives and formal monitoring and evalu- ation and (b) subject to program-level evaluations that sample a subset of demonstration projects rather than all projects. 3.2 The FHWA RD&T program is spread across many different high- way topical areas, allowing it to contribute positively to many important highway problems and needs. Although the scope of FHWA RD&T program is comprehensive, the emphasis on be- ing comprehensive may be leading to resources being spread too thinly. Congress’s direction that funding representing $80 million in FHWA and ITS RD&T resources be set aside for specific dem- onstration programs has exacerbated this risk.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 73 3.3 FHWA RD&T and ITS JPO initiatives are organized strategically to further specific objectives. Included in these objectives are ones Congress has emphasized, particularly orienting the federal-aid highway program around performance objectives (mobility, safety, accelerated delivery of projects, and asset management) and serving the goals that Congress established for the ITS program. 3.4 FHWA and ITS JPO RD&T programs are designed to serve the states and local governments that own and operate highways and must deploy innovations to ensure these highways serve the inter- ests of society and the economy. More than 80 percent of FHWA’s HRD RD&T activities identify state DOTs as partners. FHWA’s deployment programs serve states and local agencies directly. ITS JPO’s large-scale pilot programs and ITS demonstration projects conducted with state and local government partners (including the Smart City Challenge) represent 44 percent of ITS funding, and many of its programs support state and local government initiatives as well as professional capacity building.

74 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION ANNEX 3-A SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FUNDING ALTERNATIVE GRANTEES AND FUNDING TABLE 3-A-1 Pilot Program Grants for Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program, Fiscal Years 2016–2018a State Department of Transportation Amount(s) ($) Description California 750,000 1,750,000 2,030,000 Road user charges (RUCs) using pay-at-the- pump mechanism; exploration of California’s RUCs with emerging technologies and services, such as usage-based insurance, transportation network companies, and autonomous vehicles. Colorado 500,000 Investigation of RUC revenue collection mechanisms. Delaware and members of I-95 Corridor Coalition 1,490,000 975,000 3,028,000 User fees based on on-board mileage counters; equity and privacy issues in a multi-state region; requirements for implementation, interoperability, public acceptance, and other potential hurdles across state lines. Hawaii 3,998,000 User fee collection based on odometer readings at manual or automated collection stations. Minnesota 300,000 999,600 Use of Mobility as a Service providers to collect revenues. Missouri 250,000 2,772,500 1,782,500 Implementation of registration fee based on estimated mileage; public outreach on concerns about equity and data security; deployment of innovative revenue collection strategies. New Hampshire 250,000 Exploration of road user charges levied in conjunction with vehicle registration fees. Oregon 2,100,000 2,315,000 Improvements to Oregon’s existing RUC program. Oregon and Western RUC Consortium 1,500,000 2,590,000 950,000 Establishing the consistency, compatibility, and interoperability in road user charging for a regional system; connecting Oregon and California RUC pilots; exploration of RUC and automated vehicles in a regional system. Utah 1,250,000 Pilot test at RUC for alternative fuel vehicles including hybrid and electric vehicles. Washington 3,847,000 4,600,000 Testing critical elements of interoperable, multi- jurisdictional alternative user-based revenue collection systems; public outreach regarding methods for assessing and collecting fees. a FHWA Press Releases. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1648.cfm; https://www. fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1718.cfm; https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1902.cfm.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 75 ANNEX 3-B NHTSA V2V RULEMAKING AND FCC SPECTRUM ALLOCATION Large-scale deployment of CV as a safety measure has been a primary goal of the USDOT ITS program for 20 years, with development and testing concentrating on DSRC V2V technology. FCC in 1999 allocated the 5.9 GHz frequency band for use by DSRC ITS. NHTSA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in August 2014 and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in January 2017 proposing to mandate DSRC V2V on all new light-duty vehicles at a future date. NHTSA estimated in 2014 that if its pro- posed rule were adopted, two V2I applications (intersection movement assist and left turn assist) would eventually avoid 50 to 1,000 fatalities and 31,000 to 270,000 injuries annually104 and that additional applications would lead to greater benefits. NHTSA’s 2016 preliminary regulatory impact analysis estimated that the proposed rule would eventually avoid roughly 1,000 fatali- ties and 400,000 injuries annually.105 NHTSA has announced no decision on whether it will proceed with regulation. While regulatory action on CV has been in suspense, the motor vehicle industry has recognized an important potential market for cellular CV, connecting the vehicle to service providers (e.g., for vehicle perfor- mance monitoring, entertainment, emergency assistance, and commercial fleet applications), as standard or optional motor vehicle equipment.106,107 Cellular V2V has emerged as a potential alternative technology to DSRC, and industry plans for offering cellular V2V as a safety feature have been announced.108 In the absence of NHTSA action on the proposed rule, industry commitments to installation of DSRC have been suspended or reversed. Finally, the broadband industry, seeking additional spectrum for Wi-Fi, has asked FCC to reconsider its reservation of the 5.9 GHz band for exclusive ITS use. FCC has a regulatory proceeding under way on possible 104 NHTSA. 2014a. Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) Communications. 79 FR 49270. August 20, xvi. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2014-0022-0002. 105 NHTSA. 2016. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis: FMVSS No. 150: Vehicle-to- Vehicle Communication Technology for Light Vehicles. November, E-11. https://www.nhtsa. gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/v2v_pria_12-12-16_clean.pdf. 106 Bertoncello, M., A. Husain, and T. Möller. 2018. Setting the framework for car connec- tivity and user experience. McKinsey Quarterly. November. https://mckinsey.com/industries/ automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/setting-the-framework-for-car-connectivity-and-user- experience. 107 SAS Institute, Inc. 2017. Analytics Accelerates Monetization Opportunities for Con- nected Vehicle and Mobility Services. https://www.sas.com/en_sa/whitepapers/monetization- opportunities-connected-vehicle-mobility-services-109128.html. 108 Abuelsamid, S. 2019. Ford Breaks with Auto Rivals by Committing to C-V2X Vehicle Com- munications Tech. Forbes, Jan. 7. https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2019/01/07/ ford-becomes-first-automaker-to-commit-production-c-v2x-communications/#18a37cf6788f.

76 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION Wi-Fi use of the 5.9 GHz band.109 Box Annex 3-B-1 shows a chronology of USDOT V2V research and regulatory activities, as well as recent related industry actions and developments in other countries. The recent challenges to USDOT’s historical CV development track raise two related but independent sets of policy questions: • Concerning regulation: Should the federal government mandate V2V devices? If so, should the regulation dictate a specific com- munications technology? If regulation specifies a technology, which technology should this be? • Concerning spectrum allocation: Should a frequency band be re- served for ITS use? If so, can the ITS band be shared or partitioned to allow other uses? If allocated spectrum is required, is the 5.9 GHz or some other band most suitable, from the point of view of maximizing public benefits from the available spectrum? To obtain information on these recent developments, USDOT pub- lished in December 2018 a Request for Comments on vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication, asking nine questions concerning technology alterna- tives and spectrum usage, including “what existing or future technologies could be used for V2X communications;” “if [spectrum] allocation were to be changed…, could DSRC and other technologies (e.g., C-V2X [cellular vehicle to everything communication], 5G [fifth generation cellular network technology], or any future technology) operate in the same spectrum band;” and “is it technically feasible for multiple V2X communications technologies and protocols to be interoperable?”110 The request received 166 responses from companies and industry groups in the motor vehicle, automotive and electronic equipment, and telecommunications industries; state transpor- tation departments; local governments; professional and other nonprofit organizations; and individuals. Some of the responses included comments on NHTSA rulemaking and connected vehicle development in general, as well as on USDOT’s technical questions about communications technology. Arguments are summarized below from the responses to the USDOT request, USDOT policy statements, and other sources in support of main- taining USDOT’s historical CV development track and the present alloca- tion of the 5.9 GHz band for DSRC-based ITS applications, or in support 109 FCC. 2013. Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band ET Docket No. 13- 49. Feb. 20. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?bureaus_description=Office%20of%20 Engineering%20and%20Technology&proceedings_name=13-49&sort=date_disseminated, DESC&submissiontype_description=LETTER. 110 USDOT. 2018b. Notice of Request for Comments: V2X Communications. 83 FR 66338. Dec. 26. https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOT-OST-2018-0210.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 77 BOX 3-B-1 Chronology of Development of DSRC V2V Communications Technology 1980s–1990s: Government and industry groups promote the Intelligent Vehicles and Highway Systems concept, including connected vehicles (CVs). The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and industry research develop Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) crash avoidance concepts, without commitment to a specific CV architecture. 1997: ITS America petitions the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to allocate 5.9 GHz band (5.850–5.925) to dedicated short range communications (DSRC) for ITS.a 1998: The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century directs USDOT to pro- mote interoperability of ITS technologies in the United States. 1999, October: FCC allocates the 5.9 GHz band to ITS DSRC.b 2001–2011: USDOT conducts research, in collaboration with industry, on crash avoidance technology, including potential safety benefits of DSRC vehicle-to- vehicle (V2V) communication.c 2003, December 17: The FCC adopts an order specifying licensing and service rules for ITS DSRC.d 2008: The European Commission designates the 5.9 GHz band for ITS.e 2010: USDOT publishes IntelliDrive Policy Roadmap, a policy research plan concentrating on support for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rulemaking on vehicle communications safety systems and on a safety pilot to test V2V and V2I applications.f 2011–2014: USDOT-sponsored Ann Arbor Safety Pilot of DSRC V2V and vehicle- to-infrastructure (V2I) communication.g 2014, August 20: NHTSA publishes Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule- making: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) Communications,h proposing a safety standard requiring V2V devices in new light-duty vehicles in a future year, with specified minimum performance capabili- ties. Published at the same time is NHTSA’s V2V Readiness Study,i based on the Ann Arbor pilot and including preliminary benefit and cost estimates. 2014, December: ITS JPO’s ITS Strategic Plan 2015-2019 states that the ITS program will conduct research, development, and adoption activities on DSRC technology in support of the NHTSA V2V rulemaking and also on “other CV technologies and communications that are enabled by either DSRC or other networks, such as cellular, Wi-Fi, or satellite. The ITS Program will consider how various technologies and communications media will interact and operate within the anticipated CV environment.”j 2015, July: A USDOT report to Congress, mandated in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, concludes “5.9 GHz DSRC remains a foun- dational requirement for enabling safety-critical V2V and V2I applications” and “DSRC is ready for wider-scale implementation.”k continued

78 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION BOX 3-B-1 Continued 2015, September: ITS JPO awards cooperative agreements in the CV Pilot De- ployment Program to New York City, Tampa, and Wyoming. 2016, November: NHTSA publishes a preliminary regulatory impact analysis, estimating that the proposed V2V rule would eventually avoid roughly 1,000 fatalities and 400,000 injuries annually.l 2017, January 12: NHTSA publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; V2V Communications proposing the DSRC V2V system technical requirements, applicability, and timetable of the regulation.m 2017, March 9: General Motors announces introduction of V2V DSRC communi- cations as standard equipment on some Cadillac models.n 2017, November 8: NHTSA releases a statement on the status of its V2V rule- making: “The Department of Transportation and NHTSA have not made any final decision on the proposed rulemaking concerning a V2V mandate. Any reports to the contrary are mistaken. In all events, DOT hopes to use the dedicated spectrum for transportation lifesaving technologies. Safety is the Department’s number one priority.”o 2018, October 16: The Internet & Television Association (NCTA) petitions FCC to consider designating all or part of the 5.9 GHz band for unlicensed use (e.g., Wi-Fi) and to seek comments on allocating other spectrum for ITS.p 2018, December 26: USDOT publishes Notice of Request for Comments: V2X Communications asking for comments on alternative V2X communications technologies.q 2019, March 13: The European Commission adopts a regulation specifying requirements for interoperability of connected vehicle systems, using DSRC technology.r 2019, April: Toyota announces it “has decided to pause its deployment” of DSRC V2V, citing lack of production commitments from other automakers and regulatory uncertainty. Toyota had announced in 2018 a plan to equip all of its vehicles sold in the United States with DSRC starting in 2021.s a FCC. 2019. Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) Service. Updated April 22. https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/dedicated-short- range-communications-dsrc-service. b FCC. 2019. Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) Service. Updated April 22. https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/dedicated-short- range-communications-dsrc-service. c Ahmed-Zaid, F., et al. (Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership). 2011. Vehicle Safety Communications—Applications VSC-A: Second Annual Report: January 1, 2008 through De- cember 31, 2008. NHTSA, August. www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/ Technical%20Publications/2011/811466.pdf. d FCC. 2019. Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) Service. Updated April 22. https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/dedicated-short- range-communications-dsrc-service. e European Commission. 2008. Commission Decision of 5 August 2008 on the harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 5 875-5 905 MHz frequency band for safety-related applications of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). August 5. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008D0671&from=en. continued

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 79 BOX 3-B-1 Continued f NHTSA. 2010. Policy Roadmap for the IntelliDrive Safety Program: Vehicle-to- Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I). Second Draft. July. g Bezzina, D., and J. Sayer. 2015. Safety Pilot Model Deployment: Test Conductor Team Report. NHTSA, June. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812171-safetypilot- modeldeploydeltestcondrtmrep.pdf. h NHTSA. 2014a. Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) Communications. 79 FR 49270. August 20. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2014-0022-0002. i NHTSA. 2014b. Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications: Readiness of V2V Technology for Application. August 18. https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NHTSA-2014-0022. j ITS JPO. 2014. ITS Strategic Plan 2015–2019. U.S. Department of Transportation. ITS JPO-14-145, p. 16. https://www.its.dot.gov/strategicplan.pdf. k Bettisworth, C., et al. 2015. Status of the Dedicated Short-Range Communications Technology and Applications: Report to Congress. USDOT, July. https://www.its.dot.gov/ research_archives/connected_vehicle/pdf/DSRCReportCongress_FINAL_23NOV2015.pdf. l NHTSA. 2016. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis: FMVSS No. 150: Vehicle-to- Vehicle Communication Technology for Light Vehicles. November. https://www.nhtsa.gov/ sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/v2v_pria_12-12-16_clean.pdf. m NHTSA. 2017a. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: V2V Communications. 82 FR 3854. January 12. https://www.regulations.gov/ docket?D=NHTSA-2016-0126. n General Motors. 2017. V2V Safety Technology Now Standard on Cadillac CTS Sedans. March 9. https://media.cadillac.com/media/us/en/cadillac/news.detail.html/content/Pages/ news/us/en/2017/mar/0309-v2v.html. o NHTSA. 2017b. V2V Statement. Nov. 8. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/v2v-statement. p NCTA. 2018. A Fresh Look at the 5.9 GHz Band. https://www.ncta.com/ whats-new/a-fresh-look-at-the-59-ghz-band. q USDOT. 2018b. Notice of Request for Comments: V2X Communications. 83 FR 66338. Dec. 26. https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOT-OST-2018-0210. r European Commission. 2019. Road Safety: new rules clear way for clean, connected and automated mobility on EU roads. March 13. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/ news/2019-03-13-c-its_en. s Smart Highways. 2019. Toyota to pause its deployment of V2X technology. http:// smarthighways.net/toyota-to-pause-its-deployment-of-v2x-technology. of altering these policies. (Comments of responders regarding the technical questions of the feasibility of sharing the 5.9 GHz band and interoperability of alternative communications technologies are not summarized here.) Arguments in Support of Continuing the Historical CV Development Track 1. Immediate availability for deployment: As noted in Box 3-B-1, USDOT’s 2015 report to Congress on the status of DSRC communications technology concluded that “DSRC is ready for

80 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION wider-scale implementation.”111 USDOT repeated this assessment in its 2017 Spectrum Sharing Analysis Plan, and contrasted the readiness of DSRC with the status of alternatives: DSRC is both a broadcast and a two-way short- to medium-range wire- less communications capability which permits rapid and reliable data transmission essential for communications-based active safety applica- tions…. To date, no other wireless technology has been developed which provides all of the critical attributes necessary for crash-avoidance safety. It has been through appropriate, robust testing that is necessary to prove that a technology is sufficiently mature to be used in safety-of-life situa- tions…. Connected Vehicle crash-avoidance warning applications enabled by DSRC offer the Nation an opportunity to achieve a transformation in transportation.112 Several of the responses to the USDOT request concur that DSRC V2V technology is ready for deployment as the result of past testing, pilot deploy- ments, and standards development. For example, the American Honda Mo- tors response stated that “DSRC technology exists today with established standards and extensive testing completed. DSRC is essentially ready to deploy today and would provide substantial safety benefit provided there is widespread deployment.”113 Cisco Systems’ response stated “DSRC—This technology is mature and rapidly gaining acceptance in the market.”114 2. Safety: Supporters of NHTSA’s proposed DSRC rule believe that because the technology is mature and ready for large-scale deployment, significant safety benefits would begin to be realized immediately within the first year of enacting the regulation and would grow over time as market penetration increased. In contrast, several years would be required for testing and for 111 Bettisworth, C., et al. 2015. Status of the Dedicated Short-Range Communications Technology and Applications: Report to Congress. USDOT, July. https://www.its.dot.gov/ research_archives/connected_vehicle/pdf/DSRCReportCongress_FINAL_23NOV2015.pdf. 112 USDOT. 2017a. USDOT Spectrum Sharing Analysis Plan: Effects of Unlicensed- National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices on Dedicated Short-Range Communi- cations (DSRC). December. https://www.its.dot.gov/research_archives/connected_vehicle/pdf/ DSRC_Analysis_Planv4Dec2017.pdf. 113 Turley, J. 2019. Re: Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0210. Federal Register. 83 FR 66338 (December 26, 2018): Notice of Request for Comments (RFC): V2X Communications (on behalf of American Honda Motor Company, Inc.). Feb. 25, p. 3. https://www.regulations.gov/ document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0210-0148. 114 Brown, M. 2019. Comments of Cisco Systems, Inc. Feb. 27. https://www.regulations. gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0210-0160.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 81 development of standards and regulations before C-V2X could be deployed, and the 5G cellular infrastructure necessary for full deployment is not yet in place. An analysis by UMTRI researchers estimated that a 3-year delay in adopting a V2V regulation would have a cumulative cost of 41,000 to 45,000 fatalities that could have been avoided by immediate adoption.115 Similarly, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), in its response to the USDOT request, stated that “DOT should not put exist- ing lifesaving technologies, such as DSRC, on hold while waiting for the next emerging technology to arrive, be tested, and be thoroughly vetted.” NTSB urged USDOT to “identify a means by which DSRC and C-V2X can coexist.”116 3. International harmonization: In support of its proposed rule, NHTSA cites international activities toward development of DSRC V2V in its preliminary regulatory impact analysis. NHTSA has standing arrangements and agreements with the European Union and other countries for cooperation toward develop- ing harmonized standards for V2X regarding functionality and hard- ware.117 NHTSA reports that Canada has reserved the 5.9 GHz band for V2X and Australia, Japan, and Korea are developing DSRC-based V2X communications.118 In Europe, the European Commission in March 2019 adopted Coop- erative Intelligent Transport Systems safety regulations that include detailed specifications for ITS-G5 technology (the European equivalent to DSRC in the United States) for safety related V2X services, with the prospect of integrating cellular 5G technology in the future.119,120 A proposed EC 115 Sayer, J., C. Flannagan, and A. Leslie. 2018. The Cost in Fatalities, Injuries and Crashes Associated with Waiting to Deploy Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication. Uni- versity of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. March 7. https://news.umich.edu/ connected-vehicle-tech-mandate-now-to-save-lives. 116 Sumwalt III, R. 2019. Comment from National Transportation Safety Board. March 11, p. 2. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0210-0166. 117 NHTSA. 2016. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis: FMVSS No. 150: Vehicle-to- Vehicle Communication Technology for Light Vehicles. November, pp. 1–16. https://www. nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/v2v_pria_12-12-16_clean.pdf. 118 NHTSA. 2016. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis: FMVSS No. 150: Vehicle-to- Vehicle Communication Technology for Light Vehicles. November, pp. 1–16. https://www. nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/v2v_pria_12-12-16_clean.pdf. 119 European Commission. 2019. Road safety: New rules clear way for clean, connected and automated mobility on EU roads. March 13. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/ news/2019-03-13-c-its_en. 120 Hyde, G., and P. Myles. 2019. Connected vehicles: Europe suggests minor V2X role for 5G. TU Automotive. March 15. https://www.tu-auto.com/europe-suggests-minor-v2x-role-for-5g.

82 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION regulation requiring a suite of “smart” safety features on all vehicles is under discussion, but mandatory provision of CV devices is not included in the proposal.121,122 The effect of the EC ITS-G5 rule on CV deployment in Europe remains to be seen. The stated intent of the rule is to enable large-scale deployment of systems starting in 2019. Auto manufacturers can be assured of European-wide interoperability of V2X systems only if they comply with the EC specifications, but nonetheless are actively pur- suing alternative technologies. A U.S. decision to reverse its commitment to DSRC could be a setback for harmonization with other countries that continue to develop DSRC V2X. 4. Necessity of reserved spectrum and a vehicle equipment mandate: Some respondents to the USDOT request commented that, regardless of the technology ultimately adopted, effective general deployment of CV as safety measure and full realization of ITS benefits will require a dedicated spectrum and a vehicle equipment mandate. NTSB’s response notes that it first recommended allocation of frequencies for collision avoidance technol- ogies in 1996. It states that it does not oppose sharing of the 5.9 GHz band with non-ITS uses, “but the security of pre-established communication fre- quencies related to transportation safety must first be ensured.” NTSB also notes that it has recommended a NHTSA connected vehicle mandate.123 The Honda response does not explicitly recommend a regulatory man- date, but states that uncertainty concerning the NHTSA V2V rulemaking has delayed deployment of V2X and that “In order for V2X BSMs to have the intended widespread benefit, it remains preferable to have a single communication protocol for all vehicles.”124 The ITS America response ex- presses the concern that “unlicensed Wi-Fi spectrum sharing proceedings at FCC continue to throw into question the US commitment to V2X,” but that ITS America “would support sharing of the spectrum with U-NII devices 121 European Commission. 2019. Road safety: New rules clear way for clean, connected and automated mobility on EU roads. March 13. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/ news/2019-03-13-c-its_en. 122 Green Car Congress. 2019. Europe to mandate suite of 15 new safety features in cars, vans, trucks and buses by 2022; intelligent speed assistance and data recorder. March 27. https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/03/20190327-ec.html. 123 Sumwalt III, R. 2019. Comment from National Transportation Safety Board. March 11, pp. 2–3. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0210-0166. 124 Turley, J. 2019. Re: Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0210. Federal Register. 83 FR 66338 (December 26, 2018): Notice of Request for Comments (RFC): V2X Communications (on behalf of American Honda Motor Company, Inc.). Feb. 25, p. 2. https://www.regulations.gov/ document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0210-0148.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 83 provided that rigorous testing demonstrated that such devices would not cause harmful interference to life saving V2X systems.”125 Arguments in Favor of Altering the Course of CV Development 1. Limitations of the DSRC technology: DSRC is a “static” technology with limited potential for expanded ca- pabilities in the future. Existing Long-Term Evolution (LTE) cellular V2X (C-V2X) has similar capabilities to DSRC for V2V communication as well as additional capabilities (including centrally provided mobility services and possibly V2V performance advantages, although the latter is disputed).126 Eventually, it is argued, 5G cellular V2X will provide the latency and bandwidth (speed and capacity) necessary for advanced CV and AV safety capabilities. Moreover, the net cost of cellular implementation should be less than DSRC over time due to additional cellular applications and ben- efits (reducing the net cost of vehicle installation) and the scale economies of cellular versus a dedicated communication channel for traffic information. 2. The market favors C-V2X: Industry is voluntarily installing cellular connected vehicle devices in motor vehicles in response to consumer demand for mobility and safety services, whereas plans for DSRC installation have been postponed or dropped.127,128 3. Opportunity cost of the ITS reservation of the 5.9 GHz frequency band: As large-scale DSRC CV deployment has not occurred, the band is underutilized. Meeting growing consumer demand for Wi-Fi will require 125 Bayless, S., and R. Kelly (on behalf of Intelligent Transportation Society of America). 2019. Re: Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) Communications (Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0210). Feb. 25. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0210-0140. 126 Turley, A., K. Moerman, A. Filippi, and V. Martinez, 2018. C-ITS: Three observations on LTE-V2X and ETSI ITS-G5—A comparison. NXP B.V. https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/ white-paper/CITSCOMPWP.pdf. 127 Abuelsamid, S. 2019. Ford breaks with auto rivals by committing to C-V2X vehicle com- munications tech. Forbes, Jan. 7. https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2019/01/07/ ford-becomes-first-automaker-to-commit-production-c-v2x-communications/#18a37cf6788f. 128 Shepardson, D. 2019. Toyota abandons plan to install U.S. connected vehicle tech by 2021. Reuters, April 26. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-toyota-communication/ toyota-abandons-plan-to-install-u-s-connected-vehicle-tech-by-2021-idUSKCN1S2252.

84 VITAL FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY INNOVATION new spectrum, and the 5.9 GHz band is sought for this application. The In- ternet & Television Association (NCTA) response to the USDOT request129 asserts that the NHTSA regulatory impact analysis underestimated this cost and cites the cost estimate of a RAND Corporation study funded by the Comcast Innovation Fund. That study concluded that opening the 5.9 GHz band for Wi-Fi could provide benefits to consumers and producers worth $80 billion to $190 billion annually.130 4. International harmonization: Events are moving the global industry toward convergence on C-V2X. The Honda Motors response to the USDOT request observes that China is proceeding with early adoption of LTE C-V2X and that international harmonization of technologies would allow for the most efficient develop- ment.131 Because of the size of its market, Chinese decisions will strongly influence motor vehicle industry preferences and development priorities.132 5. Regulation should be technology-neutral: Regulation that dictates a particular technology from among competing alternatives will suppress innovation and deployment. NCTA argues133 that the history of the NHTSA V2V rulemaking illustrates this risk and notes that USDOT’s December 2018 policy statement Preparing for the Future of Transportation Automated Vehicles 3.0 states that “the Department will adopt flexible, technology neutral policies that promote competition and innovation.”134 129 Goldberg, N. Re: Request for Comments: V2X Communications, Docket No. DOT- OST-2018-0210 (on behalf of NCTA—The Internet & Television Association). Feb. 25, p. 8. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0210-0138. 130 Carew, D., N. Martin, M. Blumenthal, P. Armour, and J. Lastunen. 2018. The Potential Economic Value of Unlicensed Spectrum in the 5.9 GHz Frequency Band: Insights for Future Spectrum Allocation Policy. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/ RR2720.html. 131 Turley, J. 2019. Re: Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0210. Federal Register. 83 FR 66338 (December 26, 2018): Notice of Request for Comments (RFC): V2X Communications (on behalf of American Honda Motor Company, Inc.). Feb. 25, p. 3. https://www.regulations.gov/ document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0210-0148. 132 Lawson, S. 2018. C-V2X’s momentum in China may drive connected-car development. TU Automotive. Nov. 7. https://www.tu-auto.com/c-v2xs-momentum-in-china-may-drive-connected-car- development. 133 Goldberg, N. Re: Request for Comments: V2X Communications, Docket No. DOT- OST-2018-0210 (on behalf of NCTA—The Internet & Television Association). Feb. 25, pp. 6–7. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0210-0138. 134 USDOT. 2018a. Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0. Oct. 4. https://www.transportation.gov/av/3.

FHWA AND ITS RD&T PROGRAMS 85 ANNEX CONCLUSIONS 1. Rulemaking on required communications and the specific commu- nications protocol technology standard has been delayed with no timetable for implementation. 2. There are two major competing communication protocol technol- ogy standards with pros and cons for each. 3. Research and demonstration of vehicle connectivity can usefully proceed using DSRC even if the eventual protocol selected as a standard changes. Recommending a selection of a communications protocol technology standard is beyond the scope of this report.