Research Under TEA-21 and Priorities for Reauthorization

Elizabeth Deakin, University of California at Berkeley

March 15, 2002

I have been asked to address research under TEA-21 and to comment on the future direction transportation research should take, particularly research priorities for reauthorization. I will start by saying that by most estimates, research constitutes less than one half of one percent of our overall expenditures on surface transportation. This is far too small a commitment to research for a sector that is so important to our economy and our daily lives. Low funding for research means lost opportunities - from long-term system planning innovations to better materials for construction. The Federal agencies and the states and metropolitan regions need more research funds simply to address the questions that arise in the day-to-day administration of their ongoing programs. Additional funds are needed for longer-term research that could pay off in significant improvements in transportation systems design, operations, and performance. Today, however, I will focus my remarks on two programs that I strongly believe to be deserving of your support - a new surface transportation-environmental cooperative research program, and the university transportation centers program.

1) Needed: A Surface Transportation Environmental Cooperative Research Program

In TEA-21, Congress called for the establishment of an advisory board to recommend a national agenda of research on transportation, energy and the environment. The Surface Transportation Environmental Cooperative Research Program Advisory Board (Advisory Board) was appointed in 1999 through the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council. The seventeen members were drawn from state departments of transportation, metropolitan transportation organizations, business groups, environmental organizations, and universities, and have expertise in planning, administration, economics, engineering, and travel behavior as well as in energy and environmental topics. (I served as chair.) The Advisory Board's report is due to be issued by the end of this month.

The Advisory Board began its work by conducting an extensive review of current research on transportation, energy and the environment. Board members met together to discuss issues and invited representatives of the federal government and major research organizations to present their research programs. The Board also held a workshop, attended by about 100 experts from all over the country, to gather information and advice. The TRB provided staff research and general support for the Board, but Board members themselves wrote individual chapters and reviewed each other's work. In keeping with NAS policy, the draft report has been sent to outside experts for detailed reviews to assure that the work is accurate and unbiased. Because of the breadth of topics covered, reviewers were selected for individual chapters in addition to three reviewers for the overall report. The result has been 11 outside reviews in addition to the reviews of TRB senior staff and administrators. This will be one of the most thoroughly reviewed reports that the TRB has ever issued.

Findings

Americans have made it clear that they want both mobility and a clean environment. Congress has responded over the past 30 years with policies and programs to provide both - through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Clean Air and Water Acts as well as through provisions of successive Federal-Aid Highway Acts, the DOT Act, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21.) ISTEA and TEA-21 clearly point the way toward transportation systems that are both efficient and environmentally sound, through their calls for stronger state and metropolitan planning; systematic consideration of social, economic, and environmental effects and more public engagement in transportation decision-making.

Much progress has been made over the past 30 years: the air and water are cleaner, vehicles use less fuel, species have been protected, and many other adverse impacts have been avoided as consideration of the environment has increased. But serious concerns remain. The road system has not kept up with the massive growth in motor vehicle use, and congestion plagues most of our metropolitan areas. Vehicle emissions have been slashed, but many regions still have not met basic health standards for air pollution. Fuel economy doubled in the 80s, but half of the gains were lost again in the 1990s.

Emerging technologies, policy innovations, and new planning processes offer opportunities for improvement. Relatively little is known, however, about the practical application of these options and whether and where they will succeed.

The Advisory Board's unanimous conclusion is that a major new investment in transportation-environmental research is needed to support the nation's growth and meet public expectations for improved transportation system performance.

Examining current programs, the Board made the following findings:

• Research coordination among the various organizations conducting research on transportation, energy and the environment is insufficient - resulting in gaps in knowledge and missed opportunities

• Dissemination of research results is inadequate, and the practical implementation of research findings is too slow

• Investment in transportation- environmental research is far too small in relation to transportation activity and impacts

• Current policies and investment strategies have tended to focus on short-term solutions

• No long-term strategy for systematically addressing the environmental effects of transportation is in place.

The Advisory Board has concluded that the current state of knowledge and the tools available for environmental assessment are inadequate to ensure informed and effective decisions on transportation and the environment, and that the stakes are too high to continue to accept the status quo. As in the past, the major transportation system investments and private-sector land development activities occurring today will become fixtures in the landscape and economy of the nation. Better information and improved methods are needed to support intelligent policy and investment decisions. Money spent on transportation-environmental research will pay off - in better transportation projects, reduced costs for environmental cleanup, and an overall better quality of life.

Recommended National Research Agenda in Surface Transportation and Environment

The Advisory Board has identified six critical areas for research in transportation and the environment:

Human health - how transportation systems and their byproducts affect human health, and how to improve health through better transportation planning and design

Ecology and natural systems - the effects of transportation systems on the natural environment, and ways to reduce damage and increase environmental stewardship in transportation programs and projects

Environmental and social justice - community impacts of transportation, equity in the distribution of transportation costs and benefits, transportation strategies to improve the quality of life in urban and rural communities

Emerging technologies - opportunities for using new materials and information technologies to improve environmental performance; systems designs to produce vastly improved transportation systems; new fuels and vehicles and their implications

Land use - transportation's role in urban and regional development and its social and economic consequences, strategies for better coordinating land use and transportation to achieve local, regional and national policy objectives

Planning and performance measures - improved methods of forecasting and analysis for transportation and its social, economic, and environmental effects; measures of performance that account for environmental and energy performance

While some research is being conducted in each of these areas, the Advisory Board believes much more focused and coordinated research is needed in each area. Many critical transportation-environment topics are all but overlooked, or are under-funded. The Board's report presents a proposed first national research agenda for the six areas.

The Advisory Board also has concluded that a new cooperative research program will be needed to effectively carry out this research. Current efforts are not only under-funded, but are too piecemeal and too disciplinary to be fully effective. Most are too focused on immediate issues and short-term needs of sponsors. These efforts are inadequate for ensuring that the U.S. transportation systems of the 21st century will deliver high-quality economic, social and environmental performance.

Need for a Cooperative Research Program

The Advisory Board recommends the establishment of a new, independent entity to carry out a cooperative research program on transportation and the environment. The new entity would be responsible for the ongoing renewal of the program's research agenda, would sponsor substantial levels of new research, and would take action to increase coordination, cooperation, and communication among the organizations sponsoring and conducting research, to ensure that the most benefit will be gained from collectively invested dollars.

Research on surface transportation and the environment is being carried out today by at least half a dozen departments and agencies of the federal government, their state and local counterparts, universities, public interest groups, the private sector, and numerous international entities. Most of these research programs are functioning with limited resources that, if coordinated, could greatly enhance their effectiveness. One function of the proposed research program would be to enable cooperative research among these groups, to support parallel investigations and shared efforts, and to aid in the effective dissemination of research findings from all sources.

Second, a new research program could focus resources on critical issues that cannot be resolved effectively by parties whose interests are at stake. For example, in many areas of the country, transportation-environment issues are hotly contested, and proponents and opponents debate the "facts" on a variety of topics. In some instances the debate has reached - or may soon reach - a stalemate. Research by a credible institution not directly involved in the controversies could help settle these debates. Cooperative research programs are in better position to perform this function than are other research sponsors.

Third, for many transportation-environment research topics, there has been little work done to date, or the work has been narrowly scoped or focused on short-term and primary impacts. In contrast, many of the emerging issues in transportation and the environment concern broad, long term, multimedia, dynamic and systems effects - for example, the potential effects of transportation emissions in one metropolitan area on air and water quality in other regions many miles downwind. Research that addresses these longer-term systems effects is needed, but, as noted earlier, most existing research programs focus on immediate programmatic needs of sponsors. A new cooperative research program would be far better positioned to work on the long-term, complex issues that are now emerging.

It is for all these reasons that the Advisory Board recommends the establishment of a surface transportation environmental cooperative research program, as originally called for in TEA-21. This program would be responsible for ensuring that the national research agenda is implemented, in certain cases by sponsoring the research and in other cases by serving as the coordinating body. Research under the auspices of the program would stem from a clearly articulated mission, be subject to the highest levels of merit and peer review, and be conducted in a manner that is transparent to all parties. The cooperative research program also would conduct an annual review of the research work being carried out by the various federal government entities and survey the work being done elsewhere throughout the world. This review would include specific recommendations for enhanced coordination; sharing of resources and findings; and identification of research gaps, with particular focus on long-term needs.

An effective cooperative research program would serve the needs of and therefore require the participation of government agencies, nonprofit organizations, academia, and the private sector. The board overseeing the cooperative research program should likewise represent the full range of interests to achieve a balanced and comprehensive perspective.

Elements of a Successful Cooperative Research Program

The Advisory Board has identified a number of specific program elements that Board members believe are critical for success:

Core partners - Public agencies, the private sector, and nongovernmental, nonprofit organizations all should be included as core partners in the overall governance of a surface transportation environmental cooperative research program.

Independent Organization - The transportation-environmental cooperative research program should be established as an independent entity with the authority to enter into partnerships with other public and private entities, to support research, and to sponsor workshops, seminars, and other research dissemination activities. The program could be either a new nonprofit, or a new program established in an existing nonprofit organization such as the National Research Council. The independence of the organization should help assure its credibility, while enabling both government and the private sector to contribute funds to support its activities.

Research agenda - Program direction should be guided by national research agenda, spelled out in a multi-year strategic plan, established by core partners with the involvement of other stakeholders and updated periodically.

Stakeholder involvement - Stakeholders should be invited to participate in the formulation of the program's strategic plan and focus areas, to submit research proposals, to participate in merit reviews of the research proposals and peer reviews of the research products, and to receive research results.

Open competition and peer review of research proposals - Research contracts and grants should be awarded through open competition and merit review, with clear criteria for the selection of the most appropriate research.

Evaluation of research - Peer review of the research results should be a feature of all contracts and grants. Periodic programmatic evaluations also should be conducted on a regular basis.

Dissemination of research findings - Dissemination of research findings should include not only publication of findings in technical reports but also active outreach to researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers, through conferences and seminars, workshops and training programs, presentations and testimony to government officials, and publications for the general public.

Funding - Stable, predictable funding is needed over a period of at least 10 years to support long-term basic and applied research as well as to pay the staff needed to manage the program.

Funding

Research on transportation, energy and the environment has been woefully under-funded, and a significant investment is now needed to address the backlog of issues that need attention as well as new issues that will certainly arise. Research on planning approaches and tools for systematically integrating environmental and energy considerations into the analysis, design and operations of transportation systems must be a part of the effort. The Advisory Board believes that funding should be provided now for a start-up phase to establish and staff the new program and initiate its work, with full implementation phased in over several years. A long-term budget request should be part of the start-up phase.

Since as little as one half of one percent of federal aid to surface transportation would produce approximately $150 million annually, a long-term national commitment of this scale would not pose a significant financial challenge to the federal transportation program. The Advisory Board believes that such a commitment would pay off with benefits many times as large.

2) Needed: Increased Funding for the University Transportation Research Centers Program

Congress first authorized federal funding for university transportation centers (UTCs) in 1987, establishing one center in each federal region. The ten regional centers have always been selected through periodic competitions within each region. Additional universities received funding as university research institutes under ISTEA, and a number of new UTCs were named under TEA-21. A limited competition among the named university centers and research institutes is currently underway, after which the total number of centers will be reduced to 26 from the current 33.

The transportation centers support education and outreach as well as research. Research topics are varied and include highway and transit design, asset management, safety, operations, environment, energy, technology, and policy. Over the years the UTCs have produced literally thousands of graduates who have gone on to careers in transportation in government and the private sector. They also have developed new approaches to transportation planning, design, and operations, invented new materials, and established the basis for new policies and programs. Clearly this is research that has paid off in more ways than one.

There is no shortage of research ideas, and it is likely that many more universities could establish productive centers were funding available. Earmarks aside, nearly all universities subscribe to the principle that research should be subject to open competition and peer review on the merits. University transportation centers should be expected to demonstrate basic capacity for transportation research before receiving funding, should show what they have accomplished with their funding each year, explain the significance of completed research, and show how it has been disseminated to other researchers and to practitioners. UTCs also should be subject to full program reviews from time to time and should have to reapply for center status periodically. In return, an assurance of ongoing funding, preferably in increments of five years or more, should be provided to allow each center to carry out long-term as well as shorter-term research.

Funding for university transportation centers must be sufficient to attract the best students and researchers and to allow serious research efforts to move forward at a steady pace. One concern most UTCs share is that the level of funding for each center is quite low. The funding pinch is especially acute among the 10 regional centers. These centers have been successful B they have increased the number of students and faculty in transportation on their campuses and have upped the overall interest in transportation as a field of study. The regional centers received one million dollars a year from federal sources in 1987; their authorization is still one million a year, though the purchasing power has obviously eroded in the 14 years that have elapsed. Consequently they are all trying to do more with less. In addition, for the past several years the regional centers have received substantially less funding than authorized due to federal budget restrictions - the next year, for example, the regional centers have been told that they will receive only $750,000 of the possible million.

Since federal funds must be matched dollar for dollar, some centers that have arranged for matches from local sources. Unfortunately, the federal cutbacks mean that these centers have to leave part of the matching funds on the table. For example, the University of California Transportation Center will lose not only $250,000 it might have had in federal funds, but will be unable to claim another $250,000 in state funds that would have been available to match the federal dollars.

Increasing the funding for the regional transportation centers to levels on the order of $5 million a year would greatly increase their ability to perform much needed research and education. Funding on the order of $1-2 million a year for other centers would likewise support important research undertakings. Merit reviews should be mandated to assure that the work done by the centers is of the highest quality and utility.

Summary

Transportation research pays off by increasing transportation efficiency, reducing costs, and improving the social, economic and environmental effects of transportation systems. Low levels of research funding slow advances and leave problems unresolved. A new transportation environmental research program and increased funding for the university centers programs are two important ways that Congress could help advance transportation for the 21st century.