SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND
THE FEDERAL ROLE IN HIGHWAY RESEARCH
Statement of
Robert E. Skinner, Jr.
Executive Director, Transportation Research Board
National Academy of Sciences
For roundtable discussion:
"Reauthorization of the Federal Surface
Transportation Research Program"
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
MARCH 15, 2002
Good morning. My name is Robert Skinner. I am the Executive Director of the Transportation Research Board. The Transportation Research Board has been involved in transportation research for the past 81 years since its creation in 1920 as the Advisory Board on Highway Research. TRB is an independent, nonprofit organization that is part of the National Research Council, which is the operating arm of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering. TRB's mission, in brief, is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. TRB fulfills this mission by maintaining approximately 195 standing technical committees covering all modes of transportation, hosting an Annual Meeting that attracts about 9,000 transportation professionals, publishing reports and collections of peer-reviewed technical articles, administering two contract research programs (NCHRP and TCRP), and undertaking special studies at the request of Congress and Executive Branch agencies.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on surface transportation research in the United States. In this prepared statement, I will focus on highway research, beginning with a brief overview of highway research programs and then highlighting key recommendations of a recent TRB report that addresses the federal role in highway research and technology.
As you know, the highway industry is highly decentralized in our country - about 35,000 public agencies administer portions of the highway system, and tens of thousands of private companies provide products and services to state and local agencies. Our highway research and technology programs are also fairly decentralized. The Federal Highway Administration's research program is the largest, the most comprehensive, and the best positioned to pursue long-term research initiatives. State DOT research programs constitute the other major public-sector component and are largely financed through the State Planning and Research (SP&R) program. The state programs place considerable emphasis on diagnostic, consultative, and testing activities related to state-specific needs--work that strictly speaking is not research but is a necessary component of the innovation process. The SP&R program is also the mechanism that states have used for "pooled fund" research ranging from ad hoc projects supported by a few states to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have collectively overseen for 40 years. Many universities carry out highway research programs, which have the added benefit of preparing future transportation professionals. Some universities participate in the federally-funded University Transportation Centers program; many others receive support at varying levels from their states' SP&R funds. Some private-sector firms and trade associations sponsor programs aimed at improving business operations or creating a business advantage.
Decentralized research programs allow the potential users of research results to participate at many different levels. Because the industry is so highly fragmented, a more centralized program would probably make it even more difficult to establish productive links between researchers and the users of research products. So, while the overall highway research program in the United States is complicated and difficult to understand at first, it provides a solid foundation for highway innovation.
Now, let me turn to the role of the federal government in highway research and technology. In doing so, I will draw upon the work of a special TRB committee, the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC), which was organized in 1992 to provide an independent, ongoing assessment of the research and technology program of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as well as other highway research activities. Its members include high-level administrators and researchers from the highway field as well as some technology experts from other fields (a current roster is attached). The committee recently completed TRB Special Report 261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology, which lays out characteristics of a federal research program, assesses FHWA's program with respect to these characteristics, and makes several recommendations for improvements.
The federal role in highway R&T is vital to highway innovation. Only the federal government has the resources to undertake and sustain high-risk - but potentially high-payoff - research, and only the federal government has the incentives to invest in long-term, fundamental research. Special Report 261 articulates ways in which FHWA's R&T program can better address this critical federal responsibility.
The FHWA R&T program responds to the agency's mission and responsibilities for carrying out the federal-aid highway program. The R&T program addresses a wide range of topics, predominantly aimed at incremental improvements leading to lower construction and maintenance costs, better system performance, added highway capacity, reduced highway fatalities and injuries, reduced adverse environmental impacts, and a variety of user benefits (such as improved travel times and fewer hazards). A very small portion of the program funding supports research focused on breakthrough technologies capable of effecting improvements in highway performance and cost reductions.
Special Report 261 recommends the following strategies for improving and strengthening the portion of the federal highway R&T program administered directly by FHWA:
FHWA's R&T program should focus on fundamental, long-term research aimed at achieving breakthroughs in our understanding of transportation-related phenomena. The committee recommends that at least one-quarter of FHWA's R&T research expenditure should be invested in such research, which has the potential for high payoffs, even though it tends to be risky and typically requires longer to complete. Current expenditures in this area are less than 0.5 percent of the agency's R&T budget - too low for such an important activity that is appropriate to a federal agency and that is unlikely to be undertaken by state and private-sector R&T programs. FHWA's R&T program should undertake research aimed at (a) significant highway research gaps not addressed in other highway R&T programs, and (b) emerging issues with national implications. The RTCC recommends that FHWA allocate approximately one-half of its R&T resources to these types of research. This share would leave one-quarter of FHWA's R&T resources for other activities related to the agency's federal mission responsibilities, including research related to policy and regulations, technology transfer and field applications, education and training, and technical support. FHWA's R&T program should be more responsive to and influenced by the major stakeholders in highway innovation. Stakeholder involvement begins with problem identification and must be carried through to implementation. To maintain an appropriate program focus on fundamental, long-term research, decisions about what research to pursue should balance stakeholder problem identification with expert external technical review regarding which research areas and specific research directions hold promise for significant breakthroughs. FHWA's R&T program should be based on open competition, merit review, and systematic evaluation of outcomes. Competition for funds and merit review of proposals are the best ways of ensuring the maximum return on investment of research funding and addressing strategic national transportation system goals. Designation of specific projects or research institutions without open competition occurs at the expense of missing creative proposals prepared by the most qualified individuals and organizations throughout the nation, and does not reflect the consensus of national highway stakeholders on research needs.
The recommendations directed at FHWA call for strong leadership, clear vision, stakeholder involvement, and accountability in all facets of the program. Special Report 261 supports a significant increase in the agency's R&T budget. Even a doubling of FHWA's R&T budget, while significant, would amount to only about 1 percent of annual total public highway expenditures and would leave the funding low compared with research expenditures in other important sectors of the economy or other federal mission agencies. If Congress agrees with these recommendations, it should provide FHWA with the funding and funding flexibility needed to undertake the recommended changes. If FHWA's highway R&T program cannot be reformed, highway R&T stakeholders should explore with Congress other mechanisms for carrying out federal highway research. Highway transportation is too important, the stresses too severe, and innovation too critical to do anything less.
Special Report 261 also addresses other aspects of the federal role in highway research and makes the following recommendations:
University research funded under the University Transportation Centers (UTC) program should be subject to the same guidelines as FHWA's R&T programCopen competition, merit review, stakeholder involvement, and continuing assessment of outcomesCto ensure maximum return on the funds invested. Congress should continue to authorize the SP&R program. The recommendations of Special Report 260 regarding the establishment of a future strategic highway research program (F-SHRP) should be carried out.
In addition, TRB has recently initiated other studies of potential interest during reauthorization, including a study of the Long-term Viability of Fuel Taxes for Transportation Finance and a study of Future Surface Transportation Agency Human Resource Needs: Strategies for Recruiting, Training, and Retaining Personnel.
I will be pleased to address questions concerning Special Report 261 and other TRB studies during the roundtable discussion.
Research and Technology Coordinating Committee
C. Michael Walton, chair, The University of Texas at Austin
Joel D. Anderson, California Trucking Association
Dwight M. Bower. Idaho Transportation Department
John E. Breen, The University of Texas
Dennis L. Christiansen, Texas Transportation Institute
Forrest M. Council, University of North Carolina
Frank L. Danchetz, Georgia DOT
Reid Ewing, Surface Transportation Policy Project
Irwin Feller, Pennsylvania State University
Leon Kenison, Bow, NH
Karen M. Miller, District I Commission for Boone County, Missouri
Sandra Rosenbloom, University of Arizona
James E. Roberts, Carmichael, CA
Michael M. Ryan, Pennsylvania DOT
David Spivey, Asphalt Paving Association of Washington, Inc.
David K. Willis, Arlington, VA
|
