President
Pete Rahn
Director, Missouri
Department of Transportation
Committee Chair
SUSAN MARTINOVICH
Director, Nevada
Department of Transportation
April 10, 2008
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pete Rahn, President, AASHTO
John Horsley, Executive Director, AASHTO
FROM: Susan Martinovich, Chair, AASHTO Standing Committee on Research
Chair, Research Legislative Team
SUBJECT: SCOR Authorization Research Recommendations
The AASHTO Standing Committee on Research (SCOR) is pleased to submit its recommendations for research and technology programs in the upcoming surface transportation authorization. A SCOR Authorization Task Force co-chaired by Sam Elters of Arizona DOT and Monique Evans of Ohio DOT did an excellent job in putting together the attached material for the AASHTO Board of Directors. SCOR approved these recommendations at its March 26, 2008, meeting.
Following guidance received from AASHTO staff, SCOR is asking for only modest increases in program size and for few new programs. We understand that surface transportation funding is at a critical juncture. Nevertheless, the benefits states have received—including lives saved, improvements in facilities and operations, and reductions in agency costs—from the investments made in research, technology, and training convince us that this small piece of the authorization proposal has importance well beyond its size. We urge the Authorization Steering Committee and the Board of Directors to keep these benefits in mind during the difficult decisions and trade-offs that must be made.
As requested, we are providing these recommendations in time for the Board of Directors’ May 2008 meeting. The timing of this submission has precluded our taking into consideration recommendations from several important sources, including the SHRP 2 Implementation Report Committee, chaired by Kirk Steudle of Michigan DOT, the Long-Term Pavement Performance Committee, chaired by Victor Mendez of Arizona DOT, and the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee on which Larry Orcutt from Caltrans and Connie Sorrel from Virginia DOT serve. These committees are currently preparing reports with recommendations directly related to SCOR’s charge and which will become available over the next ten months. In addition, we expect the FHWA will publish its proposal for research and technology authorization in early 2009.
SCOR requests that the AASHTO authorization process allow for the possibility of adjustments to the attached recommendations in response to the work of the above-mentioned committees and other developments. These adjustments could be reviewed and approved through consultation among the AASHTO President, the Executive Director, and the SCOR Chair, within overall parameters approved by the Board of Directors.
We understand that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics will receive fuller treatment from other AASHTO authorization task forces, so SCOR has made minimal recommendations for this program. In addition, we understand that recommendations for safety research in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will be handled by the Safety Authorization Team; SCOR has not made any recommendations for these programs. We have included recommendations for the Intelligent Transportation Systems program prepared by the Metro Mobility Team.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important activity. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with questions or for further discussion.
Discussion/Background
Constant improvement, fueled by research and innovation, is critical for state DOTs to provide world-class transportation services to their customers. By any measure, across industries or countries, the US highway community invests very modest resources in research and innovation. Nevertheless, we have gained tremendous benefits in terms of lives saved, more durable infrastructure, and improved operations.
However, state DOTs are continually challenged by growing passenger and freight VMT, changing demographics of highway users, shifting economies, and anticipated effects of global climate change. Meeting these challenges will require new and better ways of doing business. It will also require many resources: financial, political, and human. One of our best investments is in research and technology. These relatively few dollars leverage the rest of the highway program by providing us with solutions that improve the quality and efficiency of diverse agency activities. The federal role has been crucial in enabling a robust state R&T program, through the State Planning and Research Program, and in undertaking R&T activities that others cannot carry out due to the size, nature, or long-term horizon of the work.
SCOR’s overall approach to research authorization can be characterized as follows:
· In view of current funding predictions, SCOR has limited to modest increases the number and size of high-priority national R&T programs.
· SCOR has tried to remedy the unintended consequences of SAFETEA-LU’s oversubscription of the research title (the total cost of authorized programs exceeded the total funding authorized). This oversubscription eliminated any flexibility in FHWA’s program, which prevented the agency from supporting certain national activities, and reduced many other research programs by as much as 30%.
· SCOR supports research management approaches that ensure high-quality results, such as competition, stakeholder input, strategic prioritization, peer review and evaluation.
Recommendations
The following points provide a high-level summary of SCOR recommendations:
· Maintaining the State Planning and Research program, with its 25% minimum for R&T activities, is critical to support individual and collective state priorities.
· FHWA must have sufficient, flexible funding to carry out its core program in support of its national mission in highway R&T.
· Strategic national R&T programs, such as SHRP 2 and cooperative research programs, should be funded over and above FHWA’s core R&T program.
· Supporting ongoing training, data, and knowledge-related activities, such as BTS, NHI, LTAP, NTL, and others, increases the overall effectiveness of core R&T activities.
· While SCOR supports the University Transportation Centers program, a survey of state DOTs suggests that, despite many successes, UTC performance is uneven and matching requirements are burdensome to many states. Therefore SCOR’s approach is to recommend a cap on UTC funding, revise the matching requirements, increase competition, and conduct an independent evaluation of the program.
Policy Issue Discussion/Background
The State Planning and Research (SPR) program sets aside funding for the states to address specific transportation needs, including, among others: engineering and economic surveys; planning and financing of future highway programs; studies on the economy, safety and convenience of surface transportation systems; and research, development and technology transfer activities.
SPR funds are made available by formula: 2% of each state’s federal apportionment for six core highway programs. States are required to expend at least 25% of total SPR funds specifically toward research, development and technology transfer activities, including training. This research component of SPR, referred to as “SPR, Part II,” may include highways, public transportation and intermodal transportation systems; infrastructure renewal (including pavement, structures and asset management); activities relating to safety, operations and maintenance; environmental and real estate planning; and management, policy analysis and systems monitoring.
The states’ transportation needs and critical issues are unique and constantly changing. The SPR program affords states the opportunity and flexibility to address those RD&T needs that are most vital to maintaining and improving their transportation systems. States are poised to continue to best utilize SPR funds to address outstanding and emerging transportation research needs. States give high priority to applied research on state or regional problems, to the transfer of technology from researcher to user, and to research that supports development of standards and specifications. SPR also funds each state’s contribution to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP).
In a survey of members of the AASHTO Research Advisory Committee (RAC), respondents overwhelmingly praised the current utility of SPR in improving transportation in their states, with 89% rating this program a 4 or 5 (“very useful”) on a 1 to 5 scale. States frequently described big successes due to SPR, submitting over 125 examples from 37 states. When asked how adequately they think SPR is currently funded, 66% responded that more or much more funding was needed.
Recommendation
Continue the State Planning and Research Program in its current, formula-based configuration:
· Maintain current 2% formula drawdown for SPR
· Maintain current 25% minimum for research
Policy Issue Discussion/Background
Throughout its history and the history of its predecessor agencies, a core element of FHWA’s mission has been to promote innovation and improvement in American’s highway system. Over the course of the last few decades, this critical mission element has developed into a broad array of research and technology activities covering the spectrum of advanced research, applied research, technology transfer, and implementation. To maximize the effectiveness of these R&T activities, FHWA also carries out or funds a host of activities necessary to support a vibrant R&T program, including research administration, communication, coordination, conferences, and partnerships with other national and international organizations.
Over the course of the last few authorization cycles, FHWA’s R&T funding has been increasingly earmarked and designated until, under SAFEATEA-LU, not a single discretionary R&T dollar was left to the agency. Because Congress authorized all the funds for R&T to be spent on particular projects or research areas (often earmarking the funds to particular universities), FHWA was unable to fund a number of mission-related activities that the states depend upon. For example, there was no funding available for policy research, including infrastructure condition assessment, for updates to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, for TRB core support, and for a host of other “orphaned programs.” In addition, the lack of flexibility prevents FHWA from responding to changing national needs and crises, for example the increased need for transportation security since 9/11/01.
The states depend, directly or indirectly, on many of the activities carried out with FHWA R&T funds. FHWA needs to have the resources to carry out this aspect of their mission and the flexibility to carry it out in a responsive manner.
Recommendations
Provide flexible funding for FHWA R&T Program
· Provide sufficient un-earmarked, non-designated funding for FHWA to carry out research and technology activities in all of its topic and mission areas, for example structures, pavements, planning, environment, policy, operations, safety, and research and innovation support.
· Enough funding should be made available to carry out the full range of R&T activities comprising the innovation cycle, including advanced research, applied research, technology transfer, research administration, communication and coordination, international outreach, and other R&T support activities.
· If Congress chooses to authorize other research programs of national priority, these should be funded over and above the core funding for FHWA’s program.
· Recommended funding level for core FHWA R&T activities:
FY 2010 $200.0 million
FY 2011 $200.0 million
FY 2012 $200.0 million
FY 2013 $200.0 million
FY 2014 $200.0 million
FY 2015 $200.0 million
Support a Robust International Outreach Program
· Among international outreach activities are international scans. FHWA has been providing a 50% match for the International Scan Program carried out by AASHTO through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. This share has been approximately $750,000 per year. The combined resources of FHWA and AASHTO/NCHRP will allow this program to continue providing the US with first-hand information and insights regarding transportation innovations in other countries.
Make the Match for Advanced Research Discretionary
· The Exploratory Advanced Research Program, funded for the first time in SAFETEA-LU, shows much promise for advancing innovation in all highway and transportation-related areas. However the across-the-board requirement for matching funds for Research Title programs discourages or prevents some of the most innovative firms and universities from competing for these funds.
· The FHWA should have the discretion to determine when and to what extent a match should be required from proposers in this program in order to maximize the contributions of innovative solutions to high-priority areas. FHWA should develop appropriate and consistent criteria for applying this discretion.
Policy Issue Discussion/Background
In the previous authorization cycle, the AASHTO Board of Directors endorsed the recommendations of TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research—Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life to establish a research program focused on four goals: rapid highway renewal; significant improvement in highway safety; reliable travel times; and, environmentally, economically and socially responsive highway development. The program would require $450 million over 6 years. As authorized in SAFETEA-LU. SHRP 2 became a 4-year program of $150 million. The reduction in funding and duration necessitated the removal of much of the research planned for SHRP 2.
SHRP 2 research is being administered at the Transportation Research Board, in cooperation with AASHTO and FHWA. An Oversight Committee, four Technical Coordinating Committees, and numerous other panels of technical experts with substantial state DOT representation guide the research toward results of critical importance to state DOTs. Early results of the research are very promising and would be greatly enhanced by the restoration of some of the originally planned research. SHRP 2 is scheduled to run through 2013, thus overlapping with the new authorization bill. During this period, some of the neglected research could be carried out under the existing administrative structure for SHRP 2. SHRP 2 committees have prepared scopes for key elements of the program that are not currently funded. Priorities for this research would be determined by the existing SHRP 2 Oversight Committee.
Recommendations
· Restore and fund key elements of SHRP 2 research using contract authority provided for the federal-aid program in Title 1, as recommended by AASHTO in its original proposal for SHRP 2 but not followed in SAFETEA-LU. Title 1 funding makes SHRP 2 more clearly a state-led endeavor and relieves pressure on Research Title programs.
FY 2010 $50.0 million
FY 2011 $50.0 million
· Administer the research at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS, through TRB, is currently administering SHRP 2 and is best positioned to carry out the additional SHRP 2 research called for here. Provisions included in SAFETEA-LU for NAS administration of the program should be continued in the next bill, namely: allowance for advanced payments, waiving of the match requirement, and inclusion of “limitation of remedies” language found in SAFETEA-LU (see Section 510(g), Title 23 USC).
Policy Issue Discussion/Background
AASHTO proposed SHRP 2 to be a $450 million program authorized over 6 years and focusing on four goals: rapid highway renewal; significant improvement in highway safety; reliable travel times; and, environmentally, economically and socially responsive highway development. The originally proposed program was in to include both research and implementation activities. As authorized in SAFETEA-LU it is a 4-year program of $150 million. The reduction in funding and duration necessitated the removal of nearly all of the planned early implementation activities.