FHWA Research and Technology Evaluation Program Summary Report Spring 2016

Evaluation Summaries: Wave 1 Prospective Evaluations

eNEPA (Planning, Environment, and Realty)

Program Description

eNEPA is an online workspace and collaboration forum for major projects requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA), as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). ^(38,39) Since the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century a central focus of FHWA efforts to accelerate project delivery has been to establish coordinated environmental review processes with concurrent interagency reviews and established time periods.⁽⁴⁰⁾ FHWA developed eNEPA for State DOTs to use in support of interagency reviews with the intent of creating a transparent and streamlined process across States and transportation projects. The tool was rolled out nationally in August 2013.

Purpose of the Evaluation

This evaluation will determine eNEPA’s effectiveness at creating a transparent and streamlined process across States and transportation projects that improves the quality of environmental documents and reduces the time needed to conduct environmental reviews for EAs and EISs.

In addition to documenting current use and outcomes, the evaluation will identify how to improve eNEPA to better meet the needs of the transportation and regulatory agencies involved in project development.

Proposed Evaluation Areas, Questions, or Hypotheses

The evaluation team will focus on four evaluation areas:

• Breadth and Depth of Use: Documentation of eNEPA users, the type of projects for which they are using eNEPA, and the purpose for which they are using eNEPA.
• Usability: Documentation of eNEPA user friendliness, challenges of using the tool, and additional features desired.
• Project Environmental Review Timeline: Determination of the extent to which eNEPA has affected the time required to complete the environmental review process.
• Interagency Collaboration: Determination of the extent to which eNEPA has affected the timing, quantity, and quality of collaboration among agencies while developing environmental review documents.

Proposed Methodology

The evaluation team has developed evaluation criteria, measures of effectiveness, data inputs, and preferred data sources for each evaluation area. The team will collect data through interviews, eNEPA statistics of users and projects, and a review of agency standard operating procedures (SOPs). The team will conduct interviews with two FHWA Planning, Environment, and Realty program staff members and NEPA staff members from up to nine State DOTs using eNEPA and up to nine State DOTs not using eNEPA. Users will be asked about how they employ eNEPA for projects, the usability of eNEPA, how eNEPA has impacted the environmental review timeline, and how eNEPA has impacted interagency collaboration on the environmental review. Quantitative data collection will include—to the extent availability allows—eNEPA statistics on users, projects, and milestone completion dates (e.g., Notice of Intent (NOI), draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), final environmental impact statement (FEIS), and record of decision (ROD)).

Activities to Date and Anticipated Schedule

The eNEPA evaluation plan was finalized in August 2015. The evaluation activities, such as the interviews and data collection, will began in September 2015 and continue through Fiscal Year 2018, culminating in a draft report to be delivered in March 2018.

High Friction Surface Treatments (Safety)

Program Description

High Friction Surface Treatments (HFST) involve the overlay of calcined bauxite on a base of epoxy along portions of roadways that are susceptible to vehicle slippage. Calcined bauxite supports the grip of tires along the road and inhibits a plane of water from forming between the road and tires.

The HFST project culminated in the report, Evaluation of Pavement Safety Performance (EPSP).⁽⁴¹⁾ The report supports the use of HFST to improve safety, although the findings were constrained by limitations in the data and method. Ongoing research on developing crash modification factors (CMFs) will be published in the CMF Clearinghouse and Interactive Highway Safety Design Manual (IHSDM).^(42,43)

Intended outcomes of the EPSP and associated outreach include the establishment of accepted CMFs; supporting HFST as a road improvement alternative through an increased adoption by State and local transportation agencies; and the inclusion of HFST as both a safety and pavement feature in pavement design and roadway design guides.

Purpose of the Evaluation

The purpose of the evaluation is to understand the effect of FHWA R&T activities on the knowledge and deployment of high friction surface treatments by State decisionmakers.

Proposed Evaluation Areas, Questions, or Hypotheses

Through initial scoping activities, discussions with FHWA staff, and an analysis of HFST program documentation, the evaluation team identified three areas for evaluation:

• Change in awareness, knowledge, and attitudes: Changes in awareness of, attitude about, and confidence in, HFST as a safety countermeasure, both within FHWA and among FHWA stakeholders.
• Adoption as a safety countermeasure: The extent to which the number of HFST projects in the United States grew and the extent to which FHWA research contributed to this growth.
• Safety impacts: The extent to which the growth in the number of HFST projects in the United States contributed to improved safety of investments by transportation agencies.

Proposed Methodology

The evaluation team has developed evaluation criteria, measures of effectiveness, data inputs, and preferred data sources for each evaluation area. The team will collect data through interviews and document review. The documents will include transportation meeting proceedings, HSIP reports, and State and MPO materials (design manuals, SHSPs, Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), and Highway Safety Plans (HSPs)). The evaluation team will also access materials from the CMF Clearinghouse.⁽⁴²⁾

To assess the extent to which FHWA HFST-related research is likely to influence the attitude of the transportation community towards HFST as a safety countermeasure, the evaluation team will identify indicators and evidence of confidence in HFST. Assessing the impact of R&T research on HFST adoption will rely on changes in the number of HFST projects relative to competing countermeasures. Evaluators will also gauge the incremental safety impact of R&T HFST research.

Activities to Date and Anticipated Schedule

The final evaluation plan was completed in July 2015. The evaluation team will submit quarterly data acceptability reports upon receiving data and annual interim tech memos starting in February 2016. The draft report is expected in October 2018.

Vehicle Operating Costs (Policy)

Program Description

FHWA uses vehicle operating costs (VOC) estimates as inputs to the Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS) model.⁽⁴⁴⁾ The HERS model uses benefit-cost analysis to rank and select potential improvement projects and estimates the investment levels that would be needed to attain various targets. The HERS model is also an important component of the biennial Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance Report to Congress (C&P Report), which is read by a range of decisionmakers.⁽²²⁾ The current VOC equations are based on a 1982 study discussed in the report, Vehicle Operating Costs, Fuel Consumption, and Pavement Type and Condition Factors.⁽⁴⁵⁾ In 2014, FHWA’s Office of Transportation Policy Studies contracted the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) to conduct 5 years of research and analysis related to VOC estimation. The evaluation team will provide oversight of UNR’s work and focus on long-term or indirect outcomes of the updated methodology.

Purpose of the Evaluation

The purpose of this evaluation is to build from UNR’s work by determining the long-term or indirect outcomes of the updated methodology. The level and nature of Volpe assistance will be determined pending ongoing UNR evaluation scoping.

Proposed Evaluation Areas, Questions, or Hypotheses

The evaluation team has identified three evaluation areas to complement UNR research activities.

• Breadth and Depth of Use: Determine who utilizes the VOCs, equations, and methodologies, in what capacity they use these resources, and what impact the update had on their work.
• Policy, Project, or Regulatory Decisions: Identify the governmental and nongovernmental policy and regulatory decisions impacted by these changes and the nature and magnitude of impact.
• Response to VOC and Methodology Update: Understand stakeholders’ perceptions of these changes.

Proposed Methodology

The evaluation team has developed evaluation criteria, measures of effectiveness, data inputs, and preferred data sources for each evaluation area. These are subject to change based on the final outcomes of UNR’s efforts. The Volpe team will employ a document review (including HERS model documentation and FHWA Annual C&P Reports), interviews with applicable staff members, and possibly surveys of FHWA staff and stakeholders.^(22,45)

Activities to Date and Anticipated Schedule

The team delivered a draft evaluation plan in November 2015. The plan will be updated annually based on UNR’s ongoing work. The main data collection activities will begin in 2019 as UNR researchers complete their activities. The Final Report is anticipated by mid-2020.

Warm Mix Asphalt (Infrastructure R&D)

Program Description

The use of recycled materials, including reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) and reclaimed asphalt shingles (RAS), reduces both the amount of new materials required for asphalt mixes and the amount of material going to landfills. At the same time, use of warm mix asphalt (WMA) technologies is growing, enabling producers of asphalt pavement to lower the temperatures at which the material is mixed and placed on the road, resulting in reductions in energy consumption and emissions. FHWA is conducting accelerated load facility (ALF) and laboratory testing of WMA and to determine RAP/RAS limits and binder performance grade needs. FHWA will provide States with performance-based specifications for testing mix designs that utilize RAP/RAS. The TFHRC Infrastructure Materials Team makes its dataset and core samples available to researchers in other organizations.

Purpose of the Evaluation

The evaluation team will evaluate both the research process and research products of the FHWA R&T project, Advance Use of Recycled Asphalt in Flexible Pavement Infrastructure: Develop and Deploy Framework for Proper Use and Evaluation of Recycled Asphalt in Asphalt Mixtures.⁽⁴⁶⁾ The team will assess short-term outcomes, summarize anticipated long term impacts, and provide a framework for measuring long term outcomes and impacts.

Proposed Evaluation Areas, Questions, or Hypotheses

The team identified three research areas, each with specific research questions, including:

• Research Selection and Scoping: What process was used to select WMA for accelerated pavement testing (APT) and what were the challenges and lessons learned? What changes, if any, were made because of stakeholder input?
• Collaboration with other organizations: How did FHWA R&T collaborate with other research organizations and what was the impact of these collaborations on FHWA and stakeholder research?
• Initial acceptance of FHWA research report: What is the initial response of the Expert Task Group (ETG) to the FHWA research report? Does AASHTO provisionally adopt the guidance?

While the longer term impacts are outside the scope of this evaluation, in the future FHWA may want to consider measuring these longer term impacts, including:

• Utilization of FHWA guidance and data: What States and industries are using FHWA guidance regarding WMA/RAP? How do these States and industries use that guidance?
• Impacts on sustainability, cost, and performance: What is the expected environmental and economic benefits? How do projects using FHWA guidance compare against projects that do not?

Proposed Methodology

The evaluation team will investigate research selection and scoping using document reviews (e.g., the FHWA Strategic Plan and NCHRP reports) and interviews of FHWA staff (e.g., Infrastructure Materials Team) and the ETG. The Volpe team will investigate collaborationusing document reviews and interviews with members of collaborating organizations. Evaluators will investigate initial acceptance through followup interviews with ETG members, review of ETG meeting notes, and review of AASHTO proceedings.

Activities to Date and Anticipated Schedule

The draft evaluation plan was submitted in October 2015 and the final evaluation plan will be submitted in June 2017. The first interim tech memo will be delivered May 2016. A draft report is anticipated 9 months following AASHTO’s adoption of the research report.