**TRB TASK FORCE ADA40T** (ex A5T55)

TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

**Annual Task Force Meeting**

**International Center C**

### Washington Hilton and Towers

**Washington, DC**

# 14 January 2004

## MINUTES

(Numbered items follow the agenda.)

**1.  Welcome / Introductions:** Call to Order, *Chair Carol Zimmerman,
Battelle*:

8:05am

a\. Attending:     

Members present: Deb Beighley, Bob Bini, Brendan Chan, John Daigle, Don
Durkee, Jim Evans, Kim Fisher, Sean Furniss, Franz Gimmler, Lewis Grimm,
Laura Loomis, Chuck Manning, Donna Nelson, Jeff Olson, Kevin Percival,
Gary Ritter, Bill Withuhn, Carol Zimmerman.

Members not present: Steve Albert, Ron Eck, Jackie Lowey, Katie Turnbull

Friends: Frank Deluca, Jane Lappin, Monica Gourdine, Lisa Ballard, Byron
O'Quinn, Marcy Schwartz, Chris Jaeschke, Steve Fitzroy, David Register,
Jim Chandler, Lorena Truett, Susan Grosser, Frank Corrado, M.G. Habib,
Alixandra Demers, Chris Strong, Jaime Helmuth, Deborah Divine, Curt
Beckemeyer, Anne Dunning

b.  In the TRB reorganization, our TF is now designated as ADA 40T, now
within the Section for "Systems, Planning and Process," which is now
under the "Planning & Environment Group."  

c.  Alan Pisarski has resigned from the TF, with his expressed view that
the TF is now revitalized, has clear goals, and is thus well on its way
to becoming a Committee. 

**2.  Overview of Task Force structure and activities since Jan. 2003:**
*Carol,*

*with Discussion*

a.  TRB\'s overall goals for the new reorganization include (1) a higher
level than now customary of \"cross-pollination\" and \"synergy\" among
the committees and task forces, and (2) steering the Board more toward
multi-modal perspectives on issues. 

b.  Our TF\'s *immediate goals*:

Strengthening the organization and operation of the TF;

Better identifying our constituencies and audiences; and

Continuing to coordinate with other groups, both within TRB *and*
without.

     c. *Core, long-term goals*:

Promoting research, with attention to transportation issues (including
access and mobility) affecting all federal lands agencies; and

Promoting the effective dissemination of information about that
research. 

d.  With four (4) sessions successfully sponsored or co-sponsored at the
Annual Meeting this year, as well as sessions proposed for the
Partnership & Stewardship Conference last November, indications are that
we are making good progress toward these goals. 

e.  An objective this year is to develop a "theme issue" for *TR News*. 

> **Action Needed:** Those interested in helping with the theme issue
> should contact Katie Turnbull or Carol Zimmerman.

f.  The Mid-Year Meeting in Portland was attended by six TF members. 
Thanks to Deb Beighley and Bob Bini for helping in arrangements. 

g.  Our TF\'s Call for Papers, led by Katie Turnbull, was very
successful:  Six papers were accepted for three of the sessions this
year.   Thanks are due to TF members who reviewed submitted papers. 

    **Action Needed:** Katie has declined the paper-call-and-review duty
for this coming year; thus we need a new leader for this important
task. 

3.  **TRB Report:** *Kim Fisher, TRB* 

> a\. Marci Swartz, Chair of our Section (see 1.b., above) introduced
> herself. 
>
> b\. Kim discussed the TRB reorganization (see 2.a., above) and our
> TF's place in

that.

c\. Kim discussed the NCHRP and the TCRP -- research programs that TRB
participates in. TRB's cooperative research staff can review research
proposal statements. There is currently (FY04) a quick-turnaround
program for environmental studies, funded at \$600K. Specific projects
of \$100K or less are eligible.

Proposals to NCHRP Synthesis Program can only come from Federal Lands
Highways, state DOTs, and AASHTO; hence, any other agency needs one of
these three as a sponsor. Proposals are due by 31 January (see 5.a.,
below, at "Action Needed").

Proposals to TCRP Synthesis Program can come from any agency directly.
Proposals are due in March.

d\. Meetings: the TRB Mid-Year Meeting is at Park City, UT, on 25-27
July. The 2005 Annual Meeting is to be on 9-13 January. This year, there
were 9300 attendees at the annual meeting

e\. Papers: the number of papers increased by 15%, to 2500. The Planning
&

Environment Group accounted for 455 papers, up 30%. But, less than 30%
of the total number of 2004 papers can be published. In future, there
will be a reduction in podium sessions and an increase in number of
poster sessions. Kim expressed thanks to Katie Turnbull for her
organization of paper reviews.

f\. Newsletter: the TRB Newsletter reaches 12,000 by email.

g\. TRB's "Research Pays Off" program: TRB is soliciting articles of
750-1000 words, for publication on the Website, which discuss "How our
organization's \[transportation\] research affects our organization's
priorities."

**4.  Research Funding Programs under FHWA:**

a\. Overview of Federal Funding Programs: *Bob Bini, FHWA Federal Lands*

Bob outlined these several programs, in particular, the CTIP program. He
then introduced Monica Gourdine:

b\. Coordinated Federal Lands Highway Technology Implementation Program
(CTIP): *Monica Gourdine, Engineer, FHWA Federal Lands* 

The principle of CTIP is "implementation" -- "to deploy and to share new
technology and innovations," including field testing of innovations, as
distinct from original research.  Small projects of \$200K or less,
stressing deployment at the lowest field level, are favored.  Training
and 'synthesis' work are also eligible. Documenting and sharing results
are key.    Participating agencies include:  BIA, F&WS, USFS, NPS, and
Federal Lands Highway program/FHWA.

CTIP funding does not deduct from other Federal Lands discretionary
funds. From CTIP agency funds, each lands agency receives a \$400K
allocation, for its own priorities. From CTIP general funds, an
interagency council (each agency has a CTIP rep.) allocates \$1.5M on a
competitive basis, with priority is given to projects that will benefit
more than one agency.

**Action:** Monica will email her presentation to Carol, for posting on
our TF's Website.

c\. *Discussion:* Examples of successful CTIP projects include an NPS
test at Glacier NP of guardrail design for avalanche protection/
avalanche resistance, and USFS and partners for an aquatic organism
passage project. Many examples are posted on the FHWA Website, Federal
Lands Highway page, which has a link to CTIP.  

 

**5.  Reports of Subcommittees:**

a\. **Research Subcommittee**, *Steve Albert, Western Transportation*

*Institute (Chris Strong of WTI, assisted by Lisa Ballard, WTI,
represented Steve)*

On the subcommittee's behalf, Chris submitted two NCHRP proposals (see
Handout, which is hereby a part of these Minutes), with the thought that
the transit proposal could alternatively go to TCRP. The gateway-impact
proposal would definitely be for NCHRP. NCHRP proposals of course
require a sponsor. Proposed NCHRP synthesis topics are due 1/20/04 and
TCRP synthesis topics are due 3/31/04. Research Problem Statements are
due for TCRP on June 15 and for NCHRP on Sept. 15. The TF discussed the
desirability of gaining support for our research statements from
relevant sponsoring groups (e.g. AASHTO committees) to help increase
their chance of being selected.

*Discussion of "Transit" Proposal*: Several TF members and guests
expressed the view that the specific language in the proposal should
more clearly reflect a multi-modal approach, to include innovative
approaches in personal mobility as well as mass mobility. Term
definitions were discussed: e.g., that 3039 uses "transit" in its ATP
definition, which includes other alternative forms; the present language
in the proposal reflects 3039 terms to ensure the proposal's
eligibility. . TF members suggested that the proposal might also be
worded to highlight its significant value to other lands agencies.
Subcommittee members agreed that the text language might be amended to
more clearly reflect a multi-modal context, as above.

*Discussion of "Gateway-impact" Proposal*: Members and guests discussed
possible relationships among (1) transportation alternatives, (2)
economic impact on gateway businesses, and (3) quality of visitors'
overall experience accessing and enjoying a public-lands area. It was
agreed that the proposal addressed a policy issue of great importance,
and that it was feasible. There was consensus that a fundamental,
underlying premise was that the quality of visitors' *overall*
experience (not just satisfaction with the transportation experience)
was key, and that it was therefore critical to study the
interrelationships, as above. Metrics to incorporate overall visitors'
experience would be a challenge. One suggestion was visitors' average
length-of-stay: correlations may exist (depending on the specific
federal lands involved) among visitor satisfaction, average length of
stay (especially overnight), and average visitor expenditure at a
gateway. An attending NPS transportation planner felt it was
increasingly imperative to "escape" (her word) conventional metrics such
as cost, speed, and through-put that still tend to dominate
transportation applications and consideration of alternative systems.

**Action Needed:** At the end of the discussion, it was agreed that the
full TF should honor the work of the subcommittee and not introduce "too
many cooks." If the developers of the research statements would take the
TF's input into account and then send slightly reworded proposals back
to the TF for its next meeting/conference call, it was felt that both
proposals would secure the full backing of the TF. Additional comments
should go to Gary Ritter and Amy Van Doren by 22 Jan.

b\. **Clearinghouse Subcommittee**, *Steve Albert*

Steve not able to be present, but he has not been able to make progress
on the Clearinghouse and is looking for someone else to lead this area.
The discussion looked at alternatives for our "sharing and
dissemination" function. One suggestion was to incorporate that function
in our Website.

**Action Needed:** Anyone who might agree to take on the C/H
Subcommittee, please contact Carol. This need will be discussed at the
TF's next meeting/conference call.

c\. **Outreach Subcommittee**, *Sean Furniss, Fish and Wildlife
Service* 

Sean has continued to develop our Website (within the F&WS Website).
There is high interest across many agencies in issues involving
low-volume roads, ecology and roads, invasive species, and
"bio-engineering": soil stabilization, waterways and aquatic life
passages, wildlife passages.

With respect to TRB outreach, Carol pointed out that we had co-sponsors
for all our sessions.

There is a new Ecology & Transportation TF, and there is an
Environmental Research & Transp Committee. We need a list of all the TRB
committees and task forces involved with issues of ecology, environment,
recreation, rural transport, and public transport. Might Claire or Kim
provide us such a listing?

**Action:** Sean and his subcommittee will confer, and then the need to
augment and/or share the work of the Outreach Subcommittee will be
discussed at the next TF meeting/conference call.

**6.  Research in TEA-21 Reauthorization:** *Laura Loomis*, *National
Parks Conservation*

*Association (NPCA)* 

The various reauthorization bills include \$20M-\$30M for ATS and/or
transit in the parks/federal lands, variously directed at one or all
lands agencies. Congressional leaders hope to complete action on the
already postponed six-year reauthorization of TEA-21 (T-3? or SAFTEA?)
by late February. There is no resolution among the competing bills at
this point (each bill at a different stage in House and Senate);
Sarbanes' bill is being considered in the Senate Banking Comte. As
important as reauthorization, per se, is revenue to support the
competing dollar levels, and there is no consensus at all in the
relevant committees (House: Ways & Means; Senate: Banking) as to
offsetting revenues. If TEA-21 is not reauthorized by March, the
transportation funding will simply be extended, as it is presently, into
2005 -- i.e., after the elections. If so, no new transportation programs
or initiatives can start in 2004.

NPCA is supporting an "earmark" of \$5M for ATS innovations left out of
the principal bills, such as bicycle and pedestrian access. The House
Science Comte is considering a \$2M bill for ITS on public lands.

(Update to early Feb 2004: Impasse on an initially scheduled floor vote
in the Senate may sink reauthorization for this year.)

**7.  Land Units Reports - Recap of 2003 and Looking toward the Future**

a\. **National Park Service**, *Jim Evans and Kevin Percival*

Performance measures are a big issue for NPS transportation initiatives
(see partial discussion of problematic metrics related to visitor
satisfaction in last paragraph of 5.a., above). Reauthorization of
TEA-21 is critical (see 6., above); without it, no new ATS initiatives
can begin. Fyi, Lou DeLorme is still head of ATS at NPS.

Partnering is becoming increasingly important; NPS has established a
major office to focus on it (see 8., below). Partnering includes with
other federal agencies, local jurisdictions, and -- with particular
respect to research -- universities, other research organizations, and
NRC/TRB.

b\. **Fish and Wildlife Service**, *Sean Furniss*

F&WS is partnering with/ using work of NPS and USFS on research and
education issues. The USFS/ San Dimas faculty has been particularly
helpful.

Regarding F&WS outreach, Sean pointed out the Smithsonian/ National
Museum of Natural History exhibit on the 100^th^ anniversary (2003) of
the National Wildlife Refuge system; a PBS documentary film in the works
on the NWRs and the state-designated Scenic Byways to access them; and
CTIP funding for a "Virtual Tour" of ten NWRs -- the American Recreation
Council (ARC, re Scenic Byways), Utah State University, and Florida
State University are among the participants.

c\. **US Forest Service**, *Deb Beighley*

Reauthorization is critical (see 7.a., above). USFS must be added to new
3039 study projects.

AASHTO and the Scenic Byways program awarded USFS its biannual and
prestigious "Best Practices Award" for initiative on Scenic Byways.

USFS has identified the four most important threats to its lands: (1)
Urban interfaces and fuels impacts; (2) Invasive species; (3)
Fragmentation: interruptions of ecosystem connectivity, including the
over-a-century-old "checkerboard" pattern of alternate private and
public land sections, an inheritance of 19^th^-century railroad land
grant legislation; (4) Unmanaged and damaging recreation, particularly
motorized.

d\. **Federal Lands Highways**, *Bob Bini* 

Federal Lands Highways has recently been working closely with USFS, NPS,
FTA, and BIA. Examples: with USFS on 3039 studies, with NPS on
development of its overall transportation policy, and with FTA and BIA
on a brochure for improved mobility in rural communities entitled, "So
You Need a Ride."

Stress has been on defining "transit" as much more than traditional
transit, and on partnering on ATS and ITS issues. Cooperative efforts in
research and applications are key goals. "The transportation world
affecting federal agencies is changing rapidly."

FHWA hopes to publish a regulation soon related to transportation
management systems. The rule would require federal agencies to have
specific systems for managing bridge mx., road mx., safety, and
congestion. The rule has been through the required stages (economic
impact assessment, vetting, public hearings) and awaits OMB
authorization to publish, it is hoped by this spring.

**8.  Report on the Partnership in Stewardship Conference**, *Kevin
Percival, NPS,*

*with Gary Ritter, USDOT/Volpe Center* 

Attendance last November was some 2000, judged highly successful. The
dedication of federal agency staff, of state- and regional-government
agency staff, and of private-sector representatives to the challenges
and goals of partnership was impressive. (Transportation issues were one
topic area among the many discussed at the conference.)

Agencies need to change their cultures to encourage partnering with
"outside" organizations. For example, NPS has established an Associate
Director for Partnerships.

Transportation issues -- access and mobility -- were resonant across the
board at the conference, affecting other issues in varying degrees.

**9.  Mid-year meeting** , *Carol* 

Should we have one? Those attending: Yes. Should we go to the TRB
official mid-year meeting at Park City, UT, on 25-27 July? (This would
facilitate interaction with other committees.)

During discussion, it was observed that the forte of our TF is the
policy impact of good research directed to transportation issues that
lands agencies care deeply about. We are not, per se, a narrowly focused
technical committee. Would meeting mid-year at a NP, NWR, or US Forest
(as we have done previously) allow TF members a closer appreciation of
agency needs and applications in the field?

After extended discussion, a large majority of those TF members
attending voted for a mid-year meeting at an "alternative site" rather
than at Park City.

**Action Needed:** to select a meeting site and date. This will be
discussed at the next TF meeting/call.

**10.  Session Planning for 2005 Annual Meeting,** *Carol* 

Theme is "Transportation and Customer Experience." Sentiment was
expressed for re-visiting the "Transportation's Impact on Overall
Visitor Experience" on public lands that was proposed but not included
among the sessions at the Partnership in Stewardship conference. Carol
suggested that our proposal might be re-cast as a proposed workshop for
the 2005 TRB Annual Meeting.

Carol is looking for a chair for planning our TF's session proposals.
(Possibly Gary, given his experience in vetting transportation-subject
proposals for the Partnership in Stewardship Conference.)

**Action needed:** to designate a willing chair for next years sessions.

**11.  and 12.** (combined) **Liaison reports and Announcements:**
*All* 

Sean gave highlights of his favorable experiences with the San Dimas
Research Center of USFS in sharing its research with the F&WS.

**13.  Old business:** Beyond the business treated above, no more items
were offered. 

**14.  New business:  **Beyond the business treated above, no more items
were offered. 

**15.  Adjournment:** at 12:00 noon

> Respectfully submitted,
>
> *Bill Withuhn*

*Smithsonian Institution*