Testimony 

Before the Committee on Science, 

Subcommittee on Environment, 

Technology and Standards, House of 

Representatives

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, April 10, 2003 HIGHWAY RESEARCH 

DOT's Actions to Implement 

Best Practices for Setting 

Research Agendas and 

Evaluating Outcomes 

Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Acting Director 

Physical Infrastructure Team 

GAO-03-640T 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Leading organizations, federal agencies, and experts that conduct scientific 

and engineering research use best practices designed to ensure that research 

objectives are related to the areas of greatest interest to research users and 

that research is evaluated according to these objectives. Of the specific best 

practices recommended by experts—such as the Committee on Science, 

Engineering, and Public Policy and the National Science Foundation—GAO 

identified the following practices as particularly relevant for FHWA: (1) 

developing research agendas in consultation with external stakeholders to 

identify high-value research and (2) using a systematic approach to evaluate 

research through such techniques as peer review. 

FHWA’s processes for developing its research agendas do not always 

consistently include stakeholder involvement. External stakeholder 

involvement is important for FHWA because its research is to be used by 

others that manage and construct transportation systems. FHWA 

acknowledges that its approach for developing research agendas lacks a 

systematic process to ensure that external stakeholders are involved. In 

response to GAO’s recommendation, FHWA has drafted plans that take the 

necessary steps toward developing a systematic process for involving 

external stakeholders. While the plans appear responsive to GAO’s 

recommendation, as shown in the table below, GAO cannot evaluate their 

effectiveness until they are implemented. 

FHWA does not have a systematic process that incorporates techniques such 

as peer review for evaluating research outcomes. Instead, the agency 

primarily uses a “success story” approach to communicate about those 

research projects that have positive impacts. As a result, it is unclear the 

extent to which all research projects have achieved their objectives. FHWA 

acknowledges that it must do more to measure the performance of its 

research program, however, it is still in the process of developing a 

framework for this purpose. While FHWA’s initial plans appear responsive 

to GAO’s recommendation, GAO cannot evaluate their effectiveness until 

they are implemented. 

FHWA’s Response to GAO’s Recommendations

GAO’s Recommendation 

Does FHWA have plans 

that are responsive to 

the recommendation? 

Has FHWA 

implemented the 

recommendation? 

Develop a systematic approach for obtaining 

input from external stakeholders in 

determining the research program’s agendas. 

● ○

Develop a systematic process for evaluating 

significant ongoing and completed research 

that includes peer review or other best 

practices in use at federal research agencies. 

● ○

Develop specific plans for implementing these 

recommendations, including time frames and 

estimates of their costs. 

◒ ◒

Source: GAO. 

Note: ●=yes; ◒=partially; and ○=no. 

Improvement and innovation based 

on highway research have long 

been important to the highway 

system. The Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) is the 

primary federal agency involved in 

highway research. Throughout the 

past decade, FHWA received 

hundreds of millions of dollars for 

its surface transportation research 

program, including nearly half of 

the Department of Transportation’s 

approximate $1 billion budget for 

research in fiscal year 2002. Given 

the expectations of highway 

research and the level of resources 

dedicated to it, it is important to 

know that FHWA is conducting 

high quality research that is 

relevant and useful. In May 2002, 

GAO issued a report on these 

issues and made recommendations 

to FHWA, which the agency agreed 

with, aimed at improving its 

processes for setting research 

agendas and evaluating its research 

efforts. 

GAO was asked to testify on (1) 

best practices for developing 

research agendas and evaluating 

research outcomes for federal 

research programs; (2) how 

FHWA's processes for developing 

research agendas align with these 

best practices; and (3) how 

FHWA's processes for evaluating 

research outcomes align with these 

best practices. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-03-640T.

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 

siggerudk@gao.gov 

Highlights of GAO-03-640T, a report to 

House Committee on Science, 

Subcommittee on Environment, 

Technology and Standards 

April 10, 2003

HIGHWAY RESEARCH 

DOT's Actions to Implement Best 

Management Practices for Setting 

Research Agendas and Evaluating 

Outcomes 
Page 1 GAO-03-640T Highway Research 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) surface transportation research and technology 

program. Change, improvement, and innovation based on highway 

research have long been important to the highway system. While this 

research is a shared responsibility among FHWA, state departments of 

transportation, and private organizations, we focused on FHWA’s 

important leadership role as the primary federal agency involved in 

highway research. Throughout the past decade, FHWA has received 

hundreds of millions of dollars for its surface transportation research and 

technology program, including nearly half of the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) approximate $1 billion budget for research, 

development, and technology in fiscal year 2002. Given the important 

expectations of highway research and the significant level of resources 

dedicated to it, it is important for the Congress and the American people 

to know that the agency is conducting research that is relevant and useful 

to stakeholders and that is of high quality. In May 2002 we issued a report 

on these issues and made recommendations to FHWA, which the agency 

agreed with, aimed at improving its processes for setting research agendas 

and evaluating its research efforts.1

 As it considers reauthorizing FHWA’s 

research and technology program, Congress will be making decisions 

about the structure of the program. Accordingly, my testimony today will 

discuss (1) best practices for developing research agendas and evaluating 

research outcomes for federal research programs; (2) the extent to which 

FHWA’s processes for developing research agendas align with the best 

practices for similar federal research programs; and (3) the extent to 

which FHWA’s processes for evaluating research outcomes align with 

these best practices. 

My statement is based in part on our May 2002 report, which focused 

primarily on those activities funded by the surface transportation research 

and technology deployment funding categories identified in the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. In developing that report, 

we held discussions with FHWA officials and reviewed relevant program 

documents, legislation, and publications on best practices in federal 

research from the Transportation Research Board, the Committee on 

Science, Engineering, and Public Policy and others. In preparing for this 

 1

Highway Research: Systematic Selection and Evaluation Processes Needed for Research 

Program (GAO-02-573, May 2002). 
Page 2 GAO-03-640T Highway Research 

hearing, we also updated FHWA’s activities in response to our findings and 

recommendations. 

• Leading organizations that conduct scientific and engineering research, 

other federal agencies with research programs, and experts in research 

and technology have identified and use best practices designed to ensure 

that research objectives are related to the areas of greatest interest and 

concern to research users and that research is evaluated according to 

these objectives. Specific best practices in these areas used in other 

federal research programs or recommended by experts—such as the 

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy2

, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Office of 

Management and Budget—include: (1) developing research agendas in 

consultation with external stakeholders to identify high-value research 

and (2) using a systematic approach to evaluate ongoing and completed 

research through such techniques as peer review. 

• As we reported last year, FHWA’s processes for developing research 

agendas for its research and technology program do not always 

consistently include stakeholder involvement. External stakeholder 

involvement is important for FHWA because its research is expected to be 

used by others, such as state departments of transportation, which manage 

and construct transportation systems. FHWA acknowledges that its 

approach for developing research agendas lacks a consistent, transparent, 

and systematic process to ensure that external stakeholders are involved. 

Instead, the agency expects each program office to determine how or 

whether to involve external stakeholders in the agenda setting process. As 

a result, this approach is used inconsistently. To improve its program and 

in response to our recommendations, FHWA has drafted plans that seem 

to take the necessary steps toward developing a systematic process for 

involving external stakeholders in the agenda setting process. FHWA’s 

plans have not been finalized, and we cannot comment on the potential 

effectiveness of these plans. 

• We reported last year that FHWA does not have a systematic process that 

incorporates techniques such as peer review for evaluating research 

 2

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Evaluating Federal Research 

Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act (Washington, DC: 

Feb. 1999). The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy is a joint committee 

of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the 

Institute of Medicine. 

In summary: 
Page 3 GAO-03-640T Highway Research 

outcomes. Instead, the agency primarily uses a “success story” approach 

to evaluate and communicate its research outcomes. While this approach 

illustrates some benefits of the agency’s research, it cannot be used as the 

primary method to evaluate the outcomes of the research against intended 

results because these stories represent only a fraction of the program’s 

completed research projects. As a result, it is unclear whether the 

organization is selecting research projects that have the highest potential 

value, or the extent to which these projects have achieved their objectives. 

We recommended that FHWA develop a systematic approach to evaluating 

its research program, and noted peer review as a best practice for doing 

so. In response, FHWA agreed that the agency must do a better job to 

measure the performance of its research and technology program. 

However, currently it is still in the process of developing, defining, and 

adopting a framework for measuring performance. Therefore, we cannot 

yet comment on FHWA’s efforts to evaluate research outcomes. 

FHWA is the DOT agency responsible for federal highway programs—

including distributing billions of dollars in federal highway funds to the 

states—and developing federal policy regarding the nation’s highways. The 

agency provides technical assistance to improve the quality of the 

transportation network, conducts transportation research, and 

disseminates research results throughout the country. FHWA’s program 

offices conduct these activities through its Research and Technology 

Program, which includes “research” (conducting research activities), 

“development” (developing practical applications or prototypes of 

research findings), and “technology” (communicating research and 

development knowledge and products to users). FHWA maintains a 

highway research facility in McLean, Virginia. This facility, known as the 

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, has over 24 indoor and 

outdoor laboratories and support facilities. Approximately 300 federal 

employees, on-site contract employees, and students are currently 

engaged in transportation research at the center. 

FHWA’s research and technology program is based on the research and 

technology needs of each of its program offices such as the Offices of 

Infrastructure, Safety, or Policy. Each of the program offices is responsible 

for identifying research needs, formulating strategies to address 

transportation problems, and setting goals for research and technology 

activities that support the agency’s strategic goals. (See Appendix I for 

examples of research that these offices undertake.) One program office 

that is located at FHWA’s research facility provides support for 

administering the overall program and conducts some of the research. The 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-03-640T Highway Research 

agency’s leadership team, consisting of the associate administrators of the 

program offices and other FHWA offices, provides periodic oversight of 

the overall program. In 2002 FHWA appointed the Director of its Office of 

Research, Development, and Technology as the focal point for achieving 

the agency’s national performance objective of increasing the 

effectiveness of all FHWA program offices, as well as its partners and 

stakeholders, in determining research priorities and deploying 

technologies and innovation. 

In addition to the research activities within FHWA, the agency 

collaborates with other DOT agencies to conduct research and technology 

activities. For example, FHWA works with DOT’s Research and Special 

Programs Administration to coordinate efforts to support key research 

identified in the department’s strategic plan.3

 Other nonfederal research 

and technology organizations also conduct research funded by FHWA 

related to highways and bridges. Among these are state research and 

technology programs that address technical questions associated with the 

planning, design, construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of 

highways. In addition, the National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program conducts research on acute problems related to highway 

planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance that are 

common to most states. Private organizations, including companies that 

design and construct highways and supply highway-related products, 

national associations of industry components, and engineering 

associations active in construction and highway transportation, also 

conduct or sponsor individual programs. Universities receive funding for 

research on surface transportation from FHWA, the states, and the private 

sector. 

 3

As required by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, DOT annually develops 

the department wide “Research, Development, and Technology Plan.” This plan, drafted by 

the Research and Special Programs Administration and funded in part by FHWA, provides 

program-level detail on the directions that DOT’s research will take. This plan is used by 

the individual operating administrations, such as FHWA and the Research and Special 

Programs Administration, as a resource document to develop their subsequent program 

proposals for inclusion in their administration budgets. 
Page 5 GAO-03-640T Highway Research 

Leading organizations that conduct scientific and engineering research, 

other federal agencies with research programs, and experts in research 

and technology have identified and use best practices for developing 

research agendas and evaluating research outcomes. Although the 

uncertain nature of research outcomes over time makes it difficult to set 

specific, measurable program goals and evaluate results, the best practices 

we identified are designed to ensure that the research objectives are 

related to the areas of greatest interest and concern to research users and 

that research is evaluated according to these objectives. These practices 

include (1) developing research agendas through the involvement of 

external stakeholders and (2) evaluation of research using techniques such 

as expert review of the quality of research outcomes. 

External stakeholder involvement is particularly important for FHWA 

because its research is expected to improve the construction, safety, and 

operation of transportation systems that are primarily managed by others, 

such as state departments of transportation. According to the 

Transportation Research Board’s Research and Technology Coordinating 

Committee,4

 research has to be closely connected to its stakeholders to 

help ensure relevance and program support, and stakeholders are more 

likely to promote the use of research results if they are involved in the 

research process from the start.5

 The committee also identified merit 

review of research proposals by independent technical experts based on 

technical criteria as being necessary to help ensure the most effective use 

of federal research funds. In 1999, we reported that other federal science 

agencies—such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National 

Science Foundation—used such reviews to varying degrees to assess the 

merits of competitive and noncompetitive research proposals.6

 In April 

 4

The Research and Technology Coordinating Committee was convened in 1991 by the 

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies to provide a continuing, 

independent assessment of FHWA’s research and technology program. FHWA provides 

funding for the committee. 

5

Transportation Research Board, The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology 

(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001), p. 76. For surface transportation 

research, potential stakeholders include state and local highway agencies that own and 

operate the nation’s highways; highway users; the companies that furnish the products, 

services, and equipment needed to build, operate, and maintain the highway system; and 

the people and communities that benefit from and are affected by the system. 

6

Federal Research: Peer Review Practices at Federal Science Agencies Vary 

(GAO/RCED-99-99, Mar. 1999), p. 2. 

Research Community 

Promotes Use of Best 

Practices for 

Developing Research 

Agendas and 

Evaluating Research 

Outcomes 

Developing Research 

Agendas Through the 

Involvement of External 

Stakeholders 
Page 6 GAO-03-640T Highway Research 

2002, the Office of Management and Budget issued investment criteria for 

federal research and technology program budgets that urge these agencies 

to put into place processes to assure the relevance, quality and 

performance of their programs. For example, the guidance requires these 

programs to have agendas that are assessed prospectively and 

retrospectively through external review to ensure that funds are being 

expended on quality research efforts. 

The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy reported in 

1999 that federal agencies that support research in science and 

engineering have been challenged to find the most useful and effective 

ways to evaluate the performance and results of the research programs 

they support. Nevertheless, the committee found that research programs, 

no matter what their character and goals, can be evaluated meaningfully 

on a regular basis and in accordance with the Government Performance 

and Results Act. Similarly, in April 2002 the Office of Management and 

Budget issued investment criteria for federal research and technology 

program budgets that require these programs to define appropriate 

outcome measures and milestones that can be used to track progress 

toward goals and assess whether funding should be enhanced or 

redirected. In addition, program quality should be assessed periodically in 

relation to these criteria through retrospective expert review. The 

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy also emphasized 

that the evaluation methods must match the type of research and its 

objectives, and it concluded that expert or peer review is a particularly 

effective means to evaluate federally funded research. 

Peer review is a process that includes an independent assessment of the 

technical and scientific merit or quality of research by peers with essential 

subject area expertise and perspective equal to that of the researchers. 

Peer review does not require that the final impact of the research be 

known. In 1999, we reported that federal agencies, such as the Department 

of Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of 

Energy, use peer review to help them (1) determine whether to continue 

or renew research projects, (2) evaluate the results of research prior to 

publication of those results, and (3) evaluate the performance of programs 

and scientists.7

 In its 1999 report, the Committee on Science, Engineering, 

and Public Policy also stated that expert review is widely used to evaluate: 

 7

GAO/RCED-99-99.

Evaluation of Research 

Using Systematic 

Approach to Review the 

Quality of Research 

Outcomes 
Page 7 GAO-03-640T Highway Research 

(1) the quality of current research as compared with other work being 

conducted in the field, (2) the relevance of research to the agency’s goals 

and mission, and (3) whether the research is at the “cutting edge.” 

Although FHWA engages external stakeholders in elements of its research 

and technology program, the agency currently does not follow the best 

practice of engaging external stakeholders on a consistent and transparent 

basis in setting its research agendas. The agency expects each program 

office to determine how or whether to involve external stakeholders in the 

agenda setting process. As we reported in May 2002, FHWA acknowledges 

that its approach to preparing research agendas is inconsistent and that 

the associate administrators of FHWA’s program offices primarily use 

input from the agency’s program offices, resource centers, and division 

offices.8

 Although agency officials told us that resource center and division 

office staff provide the associate administrators with input based on their 

interactions with external stakeholders, to the extent that external 

stakeholder input into developing research agendas occurs, it is usually ad 

hoc and provided through technical committees and professional 

societies. For example, the agency’s agenda for environmental research 

was developed with input from both internal sources (including DOT’s and 

FHWA’s strategic plans and staff) and external sources (including the 

Transportation Research Board’s reports on environmental research needs 

and clean air, environmental justice leaders, planners, civil rights 

advocates, and legal experts). 

In our May 2002 report we recommended that FHWA develop a systematic 

approach for obtaining input from external stakeholders in determining its 

research and technology program’s agendas. FHWA concurred with our 

recommendation and has taken steps to develop such an approach. FHWA 

formed a planning group consisting of internal stakeholders as well as 

representatives from the Research and Special Programs Administration 

and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to determine how to 

implement our recommendation. This planning group prepared a report 

analyzing the approaches that four other federal agencies are taking to 

involve external stakeholders in setting their research and technology 

program agendas. Using the lessons learned from reviewing these other 

agencies’ activities, FHWA has drafted a Corporate Master Plan for 

 8

FHWA has 4 resource centers throughout the country, and division offices in each state, 

Puerto Rico and District of Columbia. 

External 

Stakeholders’ 

Involvement in 

Developing FHWA’s 

Research Agendas 

Has Been Limited 
Page 8 GAO-03-640T Highway Research 

Research and Deployment of Technology & Innovation. Under the draft 

plan, the agency would be required to establish specific steps for including 

external stakeholders in the agenda setting process for all areas of 

research throughout the agency’s research and technology program by 

fiscal year 2004. In drafting this plan, FHWA officials obtained input from 

internal stakeholders as well as external stakeholders, including state 

departments of transportation, academia, consultants, and members of the 

Transportation Research Board. It appears that FHWA has committed to 

taking the necessary steps to adopt the best practice of developing a 

systematic process for involving external stakeholders in the agenda 

setting process. The draft plan invites external stakeholders to assist 

FHWA with such activities as providing focus and direction to the research 

and technology program and setting the program’s agendas and priorities. 

However, because FHWA’s plan has not been finalized, we cannot 

comment on its potential effectiveness in involving external stakeholders. 

As we reported last year, FHWA does not have an agency wide systematic 

process to evaluate whether its research projects are achieving intended 

results that uses such techniques as peer review. Although the agency’s 

program offices may use methods such as obtaining feedback from 

customers and evaluating outputs or outcomes versus milestones, they all 

use success stories as the primary method to evaluate and communicate 

research outcomes. According to agency officials, success stories are 

examples of research results adopted or implemented by such 

stakeholders as state departments of transportation. These officials told us 

that success stories can document the financial returns on investment and 

nonmonetary benefits of research and technology efforts. However, we 

raised concerns that success stories are selective and do not cover the 

breadth of FHWA’s research and technology program. 

In 2001, the Transportation Research Board’s Research and Technology 

Coordinating Committee concluded that peer or expert review is an 

appropriate way to evaluate FHWA’s surface transportation research and 

technology program. Therefore, the committee recommended a variety of 

actions, including a systematic evaluation of outcomes by panels of 

external stakeholders and technical experts to help ensure the maximum 

return on investment in research. Agency officials told us that increased 

stakeholder involvement and peer review will require significant 

additional expenditures for the program. However, a Transportation 

Research Board official told us that the cost of obtaining expert assistance 

could be relatively low because the time needed to provide input would be 

FHWA Lacks a 

Systematic Approach 

to Evaluating 

Research Outcomes 
Page 9 GAO-03-640T Highway Research 

minimal and could be provided by such inexpensive methods as electronic 

mail. 

In our May 2002 report, we recommended that FHWA develop a systematic 

process for evaluating significant ongoing and completed research that 

incorporates peer review or other best practices in use at federal agencies 

that conduct research.9

 While FHWA has concurred that the agency must 

measure the performance of its research and technology program, it has 

not developed, defined or adopted a framework for measuring 

performance. FHWA’s report on efforts of other federal agencies that 

conduct research, discussed above, analyzed the approaches that four 

other federal agencies are taking to evaluate their research and technology 

programs using these best practices. According to FHWA’s assistant 

director for Research, Technology, and Innovation Deployment, the 

agency is using the results of this report to develop its own systematic 

approach for evaluating its research and technology program. However, 

this official noted that FHWA has been challenged to find the most useful 

and effective ways to evaluate the performance and results of the agency’s 

research and technology program. According to FHWA’s draft Corporate 

Master Plan for Research and Deployment of Technology & Innovation, 

FHWA is committed to developing a systematic method of evaluating its 

research and technology program that includes the use of a merit review 

panel. This panel would conduct evaluations and reviews in collaboration 

with representatives from FHWA staff, technical experts, peers, special 

interest groups, senior management, and contracting officers. According 

to the draft plan, these merit reviews would be conducted on a periodic 

basis for program-level and agency-level evaluations, while merit reviews 

at the project level would depend on the project’s size and complexity. 

FHWA is still in the process of developing, defining, and adopting a 

framework for measuring performance. Therefore, we cannot yet 

comment on how well FHWA’s efforts to evaluate research outcomes will 

follow established best practices. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions that you or Members of the Committee may have. 

 9

GAO-02-573. 
Page 10 GAO-03-640T Highway Research 

For further information on this testimony, please contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Deena Richart made key 

contributions to this testimony. 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 
Page 11 GAO-03-640T Highway Research 

FHWA’s research and technology program is based on the research and 

technology needs of each of its program offices such as the Offices of 

Infrastructure, Safety, and Policy. Each of the program offices is 

responsible for identifying research needs, formulating strategies to 

address transportation problems, and setting goals for research and 

technology activities that support the agency’s strategic goals. (See table 

1.) 

Table 1: Roles of Program Offices in Research and Technology 

Program office name Role in research and technology Examples of research and technology projects 

Federal Lands Highway Development of applied research and 

technology applicable to transportation 

systems serving federal lands. 

Road Surface Analyzer (ROSAN) measurement of 

pavement smoothness. 

Infrastructure Development of research and technology in 

the areas of highway construction and 

physical maintenance, pavements, and 

structures. 

Long-term pavement performance. 

Concrete research and technology. 

Innovative bridge technology. 

Operations Development of research and technology 

program plans for the Intelligent 

Transportation Systems program, as well as 

operation of the transportation system and 

management of freight transportation. 

Research into advanced traffic simulation modeling. 

Prediction tools and research into advanced, adaptive 

traffic signal control strategies. 

Analysis of critical intermodal freight corridors and 

facilities. 

Work zone best practices guide and program support. 

Planning and Environment Development of research and technology in 

the areas of planning, environment, and 

property acquisition. 

Workshops, synthesis materials, and case studies of 

state consultation practices with rural officials. 

Statewide planning and travel forecasting training. 

Research on the contribution of transportation to air 

pollution and on strategies to reduce transportation 

effects. 

Highway noise barrier design handbook. 

Policy Development of analytical tools and data 

systems for policy development and studies; 

conducting analysis and studies to support 

the formulation of transportation policy and 

legislative initiatives; and preparation of 

major reports to Congress on highway policy 

issues. 

National personal transportation survey. 

Highway cost allocation study. 

Production of biennial report, “Status of the Nation’s 

Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Condition and 

Performance.” 

Safety Leading in development of research and 

technology activities in the areas of 

Intersections; Pedestrian and Bicyclist 

Safety; Roadside Safety; Run-Off-Road 

Safety; and Speed Management. 

Interactive highway safety design model for two-lane 

roads. 

Pedestrian safety countermeasure selection system. 

Appendix I: Roles of Program Offices in 

FHWA’s Research and Technology Program 
Page 12 GAO-03-640T Highway Research 

Program office name Role in research and technology Examples of research and technology projects 

 

Education and community programs for 

pedestrian/bicyclist safety. 

Analysis of intersection safety issues. 

Red-light running prevention. 

Speed limit setting and enforcement. 

Variable speed limits. 

Research, Development, 

and Technology 

Support of all other business units in the 

development and delivery of new 

technologies. 

Research activities to support Infrastructure, 

Operations, and Safety units. 

Source: GAO’s presentation of information provided by FHWA. 

(542023)