GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

HIGHWAY 

RESEARCH 

The Second Strategic 

Highway Research 

Program Addresses 

the Four Required 

Areas, but Some 

Anticipated Research 

Was Not Funded 

February 2010 

GAO-10-248 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

February 2010

HIGHWAY RESEARCH

The Second Strategic Highway Research Program 

Addresses the Four Required Areas, but Some 

Highlights of GAO-10-248, a report to Anticipated Research Was Not Funded 

congressional committees 

The 2005 Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

authorized the Department of 

Transportation to establish a 

highway research program to 

address future challenges facing 

the U.S. highway system. In 2006, 

the Second Strategic Highway 

Research Program was established 

to conduct research in four areas—

safety, renewal, reliability, and 

capacity. The Transportation 

Research Board manages this 

program in cooperation with the 

Federal Highway Administration 

and others. 

The legislation also required GAO 

to review the program no later than 

3 years after the first research 

contracts were awarded. This 

report provides information about 

the process for selecting the 

program’s projects for funding, the 

projects’ status, and what, if any, 

research was eliminated because of 

funding and time constraints. To 

address our objectives, GAO 

reviewed the program’s authorizing 

legislation, analyzed studies and 

reports related to the program and 

its projects, and interviewed 

officials from relevant 

transportation agencies and 

organizations. 

GAO is not making 

recommendations in this report. 

The Department of Transportation 

and the Transportation Research 

Board reviewed a draft of this 

report and provided technical 

clarifications, which we 

incorporated, as appropriate. 

The program’s oversight committee funded research projects based on the 

recommendations of its four technical coordinating committees of experts 

(one for each of the four research areas), which considered the input of other 

experts and factors, such as available program funds and time frames. Prior to 

the program’s establishment, detailed research plans were developed by 

panels of experts in 2003 that identified 106 possible research projects. 

However, these research plans were significantly modified on two 

occasions—in 2006, when less funding and time were provided for completing 

the program than had been assumed in 2003, and in 2008, when about $20 

million in additional program funding became available. On both occasions, 

the program’s oversight committee relied on experts to prioritize and 

recommend projects for funding. As a result of this process, 56 of the 106 

projects either evolved into, or were partially merged with, one or more of the 

currently funded projects, while 50 projects were eliminated entirely. 

As of December 31, 2009, the program’s oversight committee had allocated 

about $123 million of the approximately $171 million available to fund 85 

projects in the four research areas of highway safety (40 percent), renewal (26 

percent), reliability (16 percent), and capacity (17 percent). These funding 

allocations closely followed the overall funding percentages recommended 

by the Transportation Research Board in 2001. Of the 85 funded projects, 11 

were completed, 52 were ongoing, 22 were anticipated, and all of the projects 

were expected to be completed by 2013. The outcomes are expected to vary 

by research area, ranging from useful data sets and related analyses to 

improved technologies, guidelines, and techniques for advancing the goals of 

each research area. Among other outcomes, the program staff expects 

 the safety research will produce the largest, most comprehensive database 

on driver behavior available to date and, thus, provide the foundation for 

significant improvements in highway safety; 

 the renewal research will produce a variety of tools and techniques to 

promote rapid and durable highway renewal; 

 the reliability research will develop methods to provide highway users 

with relatively more consistent travel times between locations; and 

 the capacity research will provide strategies for better decision making in 

highway planning processes to increase the capacity of U.S. highways. 

Because of funding and time constraints, 50 of the 106 research projects 

identified in 2003 were eliminated entirely from funding, while many of the 

remaining 56 projects had one or more portions of their planned research 

eliminated. Overall, most of the funded projects are for applied research, but 

many of the implementation-related activities identified in 2003 were 

eliminated. While activities to (1) translate research results into products, (2) 

train and disseminate research findings, and (3) provide technical support for 

implementing the research are often needed to widely implement research 

results, program staff are hopeful that other researchers will initiate some of 

the eliminated research activities after the program’s completion. 

View GAO-10-248 or key components.

For more information, contact David Wise at 

(202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-248 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 3 

SHRP 2 Research Projects Were Selected Based on Expert Input 

and Program Funding and Time Frames 10 

The SHRP 2 Oversight Committee Allocated about $123 Million for 

85 Projects: 63 Are Completed or Ongoing and 22 Are Planned 12 

Because of Funding and Time Constraints, 50 of the 106 Projects 

Identified in 2003 Were Eliminated Entirely, while Many of the 

Remaining 56 Projects Had Portions of Their Planned Research 

Eliminated 22 

Agency Comments 27 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 29 

Appendix II Safety Research Projects 31 

Appendix III Renewal Research Projects 34 

Appendix IV Reliability Research Projects 38 

Appendix V Capacity Research Projects 42 

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 46 

Tables 

Table 1: Timeline of Key Events Related to SHRP 2 6 

Table 2: Amount and Duration of SHRP 2 Funding, as of December 

31, 2009 9 

Table 3: Information on the Number of Projects Identified in 2003 

That Evolved or Merged to Form a SHRP 2 Project or Were 

Eliminated 11 

Highway Research 
Table 4: Recommended and Actual Funding Levels and 

Percentages of Funding for the Four Research Areas, as of 

December 31, 2009 13 

Table 6: How Safety Projects Identified in 2003 Were Reprioritized 

for Funding 31 

Table 7: The 16 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Safety Projects, as of 

December 31, 2009 32 

Table 8: How Renewal Projects Identified in 2003 Were 

Reprioritized for Funding 34 

Table 9: The 28 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Renewal Projects, as of 

December 31, 2009 36 

Table 10: How Reliability Projects Identified in 2003 Were 

Reprioritized for Funding 38 

Table 11: The 21 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Reliability Projects, as 

of December 31, 2009 40 

Table 12: How Capacity Projects Identified in 2003 Were 

Reprioritized for Funding 42 

Table 13: The 20 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Capacity Projects, as of 

December 31, 2009 44 

Figures 

Figure 1: Allocation for SHRP 2 Funding, as of December 31, 2009 12 

Figure 2: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Safety 

Projects 15 

Figure 3: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Renewal 

Projects 16 

Figure 4: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Reliability 

Projects 19 

Figure 5: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Capacity 

Projects 20 

Page ii GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Abbreviations 

DOT Department of Transportation 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

TRB Transportation Research Board 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and 

 Transportation Officials 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

 Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program 

SHRP 2 Second Strategic Highway Research Program 

TCC Technical Coordinating Committee 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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. 

Page iii GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Page 1 GAO-10-248 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

February 5, 2010 

Congressional Committees 

As the United States entered the 21st century, the nation’s highway 

infrastructure and transportation system faced critical challenges that 

demanded practical solutions. The highway system is the backbone of the 

U.S. economy and provides passenger and freight links to all other modes 

of transportation. However, the network of U.S. roadways, bridges, and 

other related structures constituting the system has been in constant use 

for decades, often exceeding original design life and expected traffic 

volumes. As a result, the system is deteriorating and has become heavily 

congested. For example, the average age of a bridge in the inventory of 

bridges nationwide is 35 years, and about a quarter of them are considered 

either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.1

 Also, increased 

traffic congestion causes travel disruptions and delays that, in 2007, cost 

travelers about $87 billion and an estimated 4.2 billion additional travel 

hours.2

 Furthermore, the number of deaths and injuries each year from 

highway accidents—the leading cause of death in 2006 for all persons 

between 3 and 34 years of age—constitute a major public health concern.3

Research and innovation play an important role in addressing the 

challenges of managing and using the highway system. Research efforts 

generally focus on incremental improvements that address a wide range of 

highway challenges and lead to a variety of user benefits across the 

highway system, including (1) lower construction and maintenance costs, 

(2) better system performance, (3) added highway capacity, (4) reduced 

highway fatalities and injuries, and (5) reduced adverse environmental 

impacts. In contrast, strategic highway research programs are designed to 

focus on fewer highway challenges and typically result in more rapid and 

significant transportation-related improvements. 

1

GAO, Highway Bridge Program: Clearer Goals and Performance Measures Needed for a 

More Focused and Sustainable Program, GAO-08-1043 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2008). 

Structurally deficient bridges have a component, such as the bridge deck, in poor condition 

because of deterioration or damage, while functionally obsolete bridges are those with a 

poor configuration or a design that may no longer be adequate for the traffic they serve. 

2

Texas Transportation Institute, 2009 Urban Mobility Report (College Station, 2009). 

3

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008 Traffic Safety Annual Assessment, 

(Washington, D.C.: June 2009). 

Highway Research 
 

To address challenges facing the nation’s highway infrastructure and 

transportation system and develop potential solutions to those challenges, 

in 1998, Congress requested the Transportation Research Board (TRB), a 

unit of the National Research Council within the National Academy of 

Sciences, to conduct a study for creating a strategic highway research 

program.4

 TRB conducted the study and, in 2001, issued Special Report 

260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, 

Improving Quality of Life (Special Report 260), which concluded that a 

large-scale, special-purpose, and limited-duration research program 

focused on four research areas—safety, renewal, reliability, and 

capacity—could help the highway system meet customer demands over 

the next several decades.5

 To advance such a program, in 2002, the 

Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) and the states’ departments of transportation funded work to 

develop detailed research plans and specific projects for carrying out each 

of the four areas outlined in Special Report 260.6

 The results of this effort 

were completed and published in 2003.7

 In addition, section 5210 of the 

2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized the creation of the Future 

Strategic Highway Research Program.8

 SAFETEA-LU required that the 

program focus on the four research and development areas specified in 

Special Report 260 (i.e., highway safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity) 

and tasked DOT with establishing and carrying out the program through 

 

4

The National Research Council’s mission is to improve government decision making and 

public policy, increase public education and understanding, and promote the acquisition 

and dissemination of knowledge in matters involving science, engineering, technology, and 

health. 

5

TRB, Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing 

Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, (Washington, D.C.: November 2001). The report 

recommended that the program receive 0.25 percent of the federal-aid highway funds from 

the Highway Trust Fund. This fund is used to distribute highway funding to states based on 

a formula specified in statute. 

6

The work, conducted through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, was 

performed to develop the detailed plans and projects needed to execute the framework for 

research outlined in Special Report 260. 

7

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 510: Interim Planning for a 

Future Strategic Highway Research Program: Summary Report (Washington, D.C.: 

October 2003). 

8

Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (August 10, 2005). This law also authorized funding for 

numerous programs, including highway safety, transit, transportation research, and federalaid highways. The federal-aid highway program is a federally assisted, state-administered 

program. 

Page 2 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

the National Research Council. The resulting program, initiated in 2006, is 

referred to as the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2). 

The program is managed by TRB in cooperation with FHWA, the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).9

SAFETEA-LU directed us to review SHRP 2 no later than 3 years after the 

first contracts for research projects were awarded. This occurred on 

February 5, 2007. This report provides information about (1) the process 

for selecting SHRP 2 projects for funding, (2) the status of these projects, 

and (3) what, if any, planned research was eliminated from the program 

because of funding and time constraints. To address these issues, we 

reviewed the program’s authorizing legislation, requirements, goals, and 

objectives. We also reviewed and analyzed literature, studies, and reports 

related to SHRP 2, and available agency and program documentation on 

the SHRP 2 research projects that were funded or identified for funding in 

the 2003 detailed research plans, as well as the revised plans for 

reprioritizing project for funding. In addition, we compared the current 

SHRP 2 projects with the four research areas identified in Special Report 

260 and the projects identified in the 2003 detailed research plans to 

identify projects that were partially or fully eliminated from program 

funding. Finally, we interviewed officials from DOT, FHWA, the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Research Council, 

TRB, and AASHTO. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 through February 

2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for more 

information about our scope and methodology. 

Research and innovation play an important role in addressing issues 

associated with building, maintaining, operating, and using the U.S. 

highway system. Highway research is an essential national investment 

Background 

 

9

AASHTO is a nonprofit association that represents highway and transportation 

departments in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

Page 3 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

because it helps address broad issues related to highway planning, safety, 

traffic operations, pavement durability, maintenance, and the impact of the 

highway system on the environment. In addition, research helps 

transportation professionals to (1) understand how the highway 

transportation system functions and (2) anticipate future demands. Past 

research has yielded many advances and innovations that have saved 

money, improved performance, added capacity, reduced fatalities and 

injuries, and minimized the impact of the highway system on the 

environment.10 For example, in the late 1950s, the American Association of 

State Highway Officials sponsored research, called the AASHO Road Test, 

to study how traffic contributes to the deterioration of highway 

pavements.11 This research, which contributed to the creation of 

nationwide design standards for the new Interstate highway system, was 

designed to complement existing highway research programs and is 

credited with critical advances related to the structural design and 

performance of pavements, and to understanding the effects of various 

climates on pavements. 

While highway research has resulted in transportation advances, 

implementing research results can be difficult because of the number of 

stakeholders involved. The network of highway transportation 

stakeholders is large and complex, consisting of federal and state 

transportation agencies, universities, industry associations, and private 

organizations. In total, more than 35,000 highly decentralized public 

agencies manage the U.S. highway system, and thousands of private 

contractors, materials suppliers, and other organizations provide support 

services. The federal government supports highway research through 

FHWA, whose mission, in part, is to deploy and implement technology and 

promote the use of innovative approaches to address highway challenges. 

For example, to enhance mobility on U.S. highways, FHWA conducts and 

funds research on current and emerging nationwide transportation issues 

to, among other matters, enhance the transportation system’s overall 

performance; reduce traffic congestion; improve safety; and maintain 

infrastructure integrity. However, according to a report issued by TRB in 

2001, the majority of FHWA’s highway research focuses on short-term, 

 

10TRB, Special Report 261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology, 

(Washington, D.C.: December 2001). 

11The American Association of State Highway Officials, or AASHO, was renamed AASHTO 

in 1973. 

Page 4 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

incremental transportation-related improvements.12 Although 

transportation agencies are generally responsive to implementing small 

innovations with the promise of short-term benefits, according to this 

report, it takes considerably longer to implement changes that realize 

large, long-term benefits. 

Although the establishment of a national strategic highway research 

program, like SHRP 2, has been rare, it is not unprecedented. Specifically, 

in 1987, Congress established the first Strategic Highway Research 

Program (SHRP) to achieve large-scale, accelerated, and innovative 

highway research on topics not adequately addressed by prior or existing 

research programs.13 SHRP focused on a few critical infrastructure and 

operational problems faced by state transportation agencies, such as the 

quality of asphalt used in highway construction, the integrity and longevity 

of road pavements, and the deterioration of concrete bridge decks and 

other components. The program, concluded in 1991, was considered 

ambitious because of its limited duration and its concentration on 

previously neglected research areas related to asphalt pavements, 

structural concrete, and winter maintenance. Two of the better known and 

more widely implemented results of SHRP are (1) the Superpave materials 

selection and design system, which resulted in more durable asphalt 

pavements, and (2) a collection of methods and technologies that 

significantly improved approaches for controlling snow and ice on 

roadways. 

The success of SHRP prompted Congress and others to take several key 

steps that, ultimately, led to the establishment of SHRP 2. Table 1 provides 

a timeline of key events related to SHRP 2. 

 

12TRB, Special Report 261. 

13In 1984, TRB issued Special Report 202: America’s Highways: Accelerating the Search 

For Innovation, which recommended the creation of a national research program to focus 

on unaddressed but high-priority research areas. In response, the Surface Transportation 

and Uniform Relocation Act, enacted in 1987, reauthorized the federal-aid highway 

program and authorized the National Research Council to implement SHRP. Congress 

initially provided approximately $150 million over 5 years to conduct the research. 

However, after this research was completed, Congress provided an additional $108 million 

to implement the research. 

Page 5 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

Table 1: Timeline of Key Events Related to SHRP 2 

Date Event 

1998 The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century reauthorized the federal-aid highway program and requested TRB 

to study the feasibility of creating a new strategic highway research program. 

2001 TRB issued Special Report 260. 

2002 AASHTO’s board of directors passed a resolution supporting a new national strategic highway research program and 

authorized funding for a project to develop detailed research plans and specific projects based on the goals of 

Special Report 260. FHWA provided matching funds to develop the plans, which was conducted under the National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program.a

2003 The National Cooperative Highway Research Program completed the detailed research plans. The plans, which 

included specific projects in each of the four research areas, were summarized in the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program Report 510, Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program. 

2005 SAFETEA-LU authorized, among other matters, the creation of a strategic highway research program to address 

challenges affecting the U.S. highway system and funding for that program. The law also required TRB to report on 

the strategies and administrative structure for implementing the results of SHRP 2 no later than February 1, 2009. 

In December, FHWA, AASHTO, and the National Research Council signed a memorandum of understanding that (1) 

established a partnership among the three organizations to carry out SHRP 2, (2) selected TRB to manage the 

program, and (3) described the program’s governance structure. 

2006 SHRP 2 was officially inaugurated in March when FHWA provided TRB with funding to initiate the program through a 

cooperative agreement with the National Research Council. 

2007 TRB awarded the first SHRP 2 research contracts in February. 

2008 The SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 provided additional obligation authority for SHRP 2.b

2009 As required by Congress in 2005, TRB issued Special Report 296: Implementing the Results of the Second Strategic 

Highway Research Program: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life in January 2009.c

2013 Planned completion of SHRP 2 research. 

Source: GAO. 

a

AASHTO and FHWA funded work to develop the detailed research plans and specific projects for 

each of the four research areas identified in Special Report 260 through the National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program. These plans and projects, known as the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program Project 20-58, are available at www.TRB.org/SHRP2. 

b

Pub. L. No. 110-244, 122 Stat. 1572, 1604 (June 6, 2008). 

c

TRB, Special Report 296: Implementing the Results of the Second Strategic Highway Research 

Program: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 

2009). 

Special Report 260 recommended that the program address the following 

four research goals: 

• safety—to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes through more 

accurate knowledge of driver behavior and other crash factors; 

• renewal—to develop a consistent and systematic approach to performing 

highway rehabilitation that is rapid, causes minimum disruption, and 

produces long-lived (durable) transportation facilities, such as roadways 

and bridges; 

Page 6 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

• reliability—to provide highway users with improved travel time reliability 

(more consistent travel times between locations) by preventing and 

reducing the impact of relatively unpredictable events, such as traffic 

accidents, work zones, special events, and weather; and 

• capacity—to develop approaches and tools for systematically integrating 

environmental, economic, and community requirements into the decisionmaking processes for planning and designing projects to increase highway 

capacity. 

While Special Report 260 provided strategic direction and a general 

framework for developing SHRP 2, additional planning had to be 

conducted before the research program could begin. Therefore, in January 

2002, TRB assembled five panels—an oversight panel and four technical 

panels of experts—to provide leadership and technical guidance for the 

development of detailed research plans for each of the four research areas. 

The panels consisted of a wide range of highway transportation experts, 

including representatives from state departments of transportation, 

FHWA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, universities, 

industry associations, and private companies. 

The planning effort, completed in September 2003, resulted in detailed 

research plans for each of the four research areas, which identified, among 

other matters, the objectives, scope, and anticipated projects and budgets 

for each of the four areas. Each technical panel of experts prioritized the 

research projects identified in its area after considering, among other 

matters, the (1) probability of each project’s success and (2) likelihood 

that each project would improve transportation practices. In total, the four 

plans identified 106 projects—15 for safety, 38 for renewal, 33 for 

reliability, and 20 for capacity projects—designed to achieve the overall 

research goals specified in Special Report 260. 

SAFETEA-LU, enacted in 2005, established several requirements for 

carrying out SHRP 2. For example, Congress required that the program (1) 

address the four research areas described in Special Report 260 as well as 

the detailed research plans completed in 2003 and (2) involve state 

transportation officials and other stakeholders in the governance of the 

research program. SHRP 2 began in December 2005, when FHWA, 

AASHTO, and the National Research Council formed a partnership to 

carry out SHRP 2 through a memorandum of understanding. In doing so, 

these entities specified that TRB should manage the program’s daily 

operations and budget and establish a structure for carrying out the 

program. Similar to the 2003 detailed planning effort, TRB established the 

Page 7 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

following organizational structure, composed of experts at all levels, to 

carry out SHRP 2: 

• an oversight committee to approve annual work plans, budgets, and 

contractor awards, among other activities; 

• a technical coordinating committee (TCC) for each of the four research 

areas to develop annual research plans and monitor the progress of 

contracts, among other matters;14 and 

• numerous expert task groups, as needed, to provide technical input to 

each of the four research areas, develop the requests for project proposals, 

recommend contractor selections, and monitor research projects.15

According to SHRP 2 staff, the extensive involvement of experts to define, 

prioritize, and oversee research in each of the four areas was intended to 

maximize the usefulness of the research results. 

Special Report 260, which was requested by Congress, recommended that 

SHRP 2 receive $450 million over 6 fiscal years, with 9 years to complete 

the research.16 In 2005, SAFETEA-LU authorized $205 million for SHRP 2 

over 4 fiscal years (fiscal years 2006 through 2009). SHRP 2 was officially 

inaugurated in March 2006, when FHWA provided about $36 million to 

TRB to initiate the program and 7 years to complete the research (i.e., by 

2013) through a cooperative agreement with the National Research 

 

14The memorandum of understanding also enabled the SHRP 2 oversight committee to 

create technical advisory committees to assist TRB in carrying out the research program. 

These committees were formed in 2006. 

15As of early November 2009, 55 expert task groups had been formed. According to TRB’s 

manual for conducting research and preparing proposals for SHRP 2, the task groups 

consider several factors in making their recommendations: the (1) applicant’s 

demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) merit of the proposed research approach 

and methodology; (3) experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the 

same or closely related problem areas; (4) applicant’s plan for involving small firms owned 

and controlled by minorities or women; and (5) adequacy of the applicant’s facilities and 

equipment. 

16In forming its funding recommendations for Special Report 260, TRB assumed that the 

formula used to fund SHRP (i.e., 0.25 percent of the federal-aid highway funds from the 

Highway Trust Fund) would be used to fund SHRP 2. Thus, TRB recommended that SHRP 

2 receive about $450 million over 6 years. 

Page 8 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

Council.17 However, the initial amount provided for fiscal year 2006 

constituted less than one-half of the annual recommended amount in 

Special Report 260 ($75 million) and about $15 million less than the annual 

amount authorized in SAFETEA-LU ($51.25 million). SAFETEA-LU 

contained other funding limitations, which ultimately reduced SHRP 2’s 

funding below its authorized amount.18 The 2008 SAFETEA-LU Technical 

Corrections Act provided additional obligation authority for the program, 

which resulted in about $20 million in additional funds. TRB currently 

expects about $171 million in total SHRP 2 funding. Table 2 provides a 

comparison of the (1) funding and duration for SHRP 2 as recommended 

in Special Report 260, (2) program funding authorized in SAFETEA-LU, 

and (3) amount actually funded. 

Table 2: Amount and Duration of SHRP 2 Funding, as of December 31, 2009 

(Dollars in millions) 

Recommended Authorized Actual funding

Annual funding level $75.0 $51.25a$42.7b

Years of funding 6 4 4

Years for program duration 9 7

Total funding $450 $205 $171

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: All funding amounts are in nominal dollars. 

a

The SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act changed the funding source for SHRP 2 and resulted in 

about $20 million in additional funding for the program for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Consistent with 

a recommendation in TRB’s Special Report 260, this legislation authorized the funding to come from 

state federal-aid highway apportioned funds, rather than from FHWA’s research program budget. The 

legislation authorized an amount not to exceed 0.205 percent from state federal-aid highway 

apportioned funds. 

b

The actual funding level represents the average amount of funds received by the program across the 

4 fiscal years: $36.2 million in 2006, $39.7 million in 2007, $46.8 million in 2008, and $48.2 million in 

2009. 

 

17SAFETEA-LU authorized the Secretary of DOT to make grants and enter into cooperative 

agreements with AASHTO and the National Academy of Sciences to carry out activities 

needed to establish SHRP 2. (Sec. 510(b).) 

18According to FHWA officials, the total cost of SHRP 2 and other research programs 

authorized in SAFETEA-LU exceeded the budget authority available for these programs. As 

a result, funding for all of the research programs had to be reduced. 

Page 9 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded research projects for the program 

based on the recommendations of its TCCs, which considered the input of 

other experts and factors such as available program funds and time 

frames. These experts included highway transportation personnel from 

federal, state, and local government; private sector firms; academia; 

AASHTO liaisons; and other stakeholder organizations within the U.S. and 

international highway community. While the 2003 detailed research plans 

constituted the starting point for decisions about project selections, the 

106 projects identified in these plans had to be significantly modified on 

two occasions because of program funding and time frames. The first 

major modification occurred in 2006, when, as discussed, considerably 

less funding and time were provided for the program’s completion than 

had been assumed by the parties involved in the development of the 

detailed research plans in 2003. The second major modification occurred 

in 2008, when about $20 million in additional program funding became 

available because of the passage of the SAFETEA-LU Technical 

Corrections Act. 

SHRP 2 Research 

Projects Were 

Selected Based on 

Expert Input and 

Program Funding and 

Time Frames 

On both occasions, the SHRP 2 oversight committee relied on the input of 

experts to select projects for funding. Given less funding and time than 

had been assumed for completing the program, in 2006, the oversight 

committee requested that the parties involved in the 2003 planning effort 

reevaluate these plans for the purpose of rescoping the program and 

prioritizing projects for funding. In doing so, these parties assigned lower 

priority to projects that (1) were duplicative or similar to other research 

efforts, (2) could not be accomplished within SHRP 2’s budget or time 

frame, or (3) could be deferred. In addition, they rescoped other projects 

under consideration for funding. After the four TCCs were formed later in 

2006, the oversight committee requested them to review the revised 

research plans. As a result of this effort, the TCCs developed 

recommendations for project funding in each of the four research areas, 

which were approved by the oversight committee in November 2006. 

When more funds became available, in 2008, the oversight committee 

asked the TCCs to prepare prioritized lists of additional projects for 

funding. In doing so, the oversight committee requested the TCCs to assign 

higher funding priority to (1) ongoing projects that addressed gaps in 

existing research, (2) projects that were demonstrating the most promising 

results, and (3) potential projects that advanced SHRP 2’s strategic goals. 

This effort resulted in project recommendations for several new projects 

and additional funding for some existing projects, which were approved by 

the oversight committee in November 2008. 

Page 10 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

As a result of the reprioritization process, 56 of the 106 projects identified 

in 2003 either evolved into, or were partially merged with, one or more of 

the currently funded SHRP 2 projects, while 50 of the projects were 

eliminated entirely. Table 3 provides information on the number of 

projects identified in the 2003 detailed research plans (1) for each research 

area; (2) that either evolved into, or were partially merged with, one or 

more SHRP 2 funded projects; and (3) that were eliminated entirely from 

funding. Appendixes II through V provide more detailed information, by 

research area, on how specific projects identified in 2003 were 

reprioritized for funding. 

Table 3: Information on the Number of Projects Identified in 2003 That Evolved or 

Merged to Form a SHRP 2 Project or Were Eliminated 

(Dollars in millions) 

Research 

areas 

Projects 

identified in 

2003

Projects that 

evolved into 

SHRP 2 

projectsa

Projects that had 

elements 

merged with 

other SHRP 2 

projectsb

Projects that 

were 

eliminated 

entirely

Safety 15 5 4 6

Renewal 38 16 5 17

Reliability 33 12 1 20

Capacity 20 7 6 7

Total 106 40 16 50

Source: GAO presentation of SHRP 2 information. 

a

For the purposes of this report, projects that “evolved” are those that had their core research 

elements largely addressed in one or more funded SHRP 2 projects. 

b

Some portion or portions of these projects were merged to form one or more currently funded SHRP 

2 projects. 

Page 11 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated 

approximately $123 million (about 72 percent) of the roughly $171 million 

available to fund projects related to highway safety, renewal, reliability, 

and capacity.19 Of the 85 projects selected for funding, 11 were completed, 

52 were ongoing, and 22 were expected to begin in the future. SHRP 2 staff 

expect all of the projects will be completed by 2013. The outcomes of the 

projects are expected to vary, ranging from the (1) production of data sets 

and related analyses to (2) development of improved technologies, 

procedures, guidelines, and techniques for advancing the goals of each of 

the four research areas. The oversight committee allocated the remaining 

$48 million to fund administrative expenses, publication of research 

reports, and contingencies that may arise. Figure 1 illustrates how SHRP 2 

funding was allocated as of December 31, 2009. 

how SHRP 2 

The SHRP 2 Oversight 

Committee Allocated 

about $123 Million for 

85 Projects: 63 Are 

Completed or 

Ongoing and 22 Are 

Planned 

Figure 1: Allocation for SHRP 2 Funding, as of December 31, 2009 

4%

12%

12%

23% 19%

29%

Source: GAO analysis of SHRP 2 data.

Administrative expensesc

$39 million

1%

Research reportsa

$2 million

Safety projects

$49 million

Renewal projects

$32 million

Reliability projects

$20 million

Capacity projects

$21 million

Contingency fundb

$7 million

Note: Data do not add because of rounding. 

 

19Each research project refers to an individual contract awarded, or expected to be 

awarded, to carry out specific research. 

Page 12 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

a

The oversight committee allocated these funds (about 1 percent of total funding) to publish research 

reports. This includes the cost of all contractors’ final project reports and TRB’s January 2009 report 

to Congress on the strategies and administrative structure for implementing SHRP 2 research results. 

b

The oversight committee set aside these funds (about 4 percent of total funding) to meet future 

needs that may arise. According to SHRP 2 staff, this funding will likely be allocated to research, the 

production of research reports, and efforts to facilitate implementation of some SHRP 2 projects. 

c

The oversight committee allocated these funds (about 23 percent of total funding) for costs 

associated with travel for TCC and expert task group members, staff salaries, meetings, various 

publications other than research reports, and other administrative costs. 

Special Report 260 recommended different percentages of funding for 

each of the four research areas, ranging from 15 percent to 40 percent of 

available funding.20 As shown in table 4, the oversight committee closely 

followed the relative funding distributions recommended in this report. 

Table 4 compares the recommended funding levels and percentages in 

Special Report 260 with the actual funding levels and percentages. 

Table 4: Recommended and Actual Funding Levels and Percentages of Funding for 

the Four Research Areas, as of December 31, 2009 

(Dollars in millions) 

Research 

area 

Recommended 

funding 

distribution

Recommended 

funding 

level

Actual 

funding 

distribution

Actual 

funding

 level

Safety 40% $180 40% $49

Renewal 25 113 26 32

Reliability 20 90 16 20

Capacity 15 68 17 21

Total 100% $450 100% $123

Source: GAO presentation of Special Report 260 and SHRP 2 data. 

Note: Some columns do not add because of rounding. 

About $49 Million Has 

Been Allocated for 16 

Safety Research Projects; 

12 Are Completed or 

Ongoing and 4 Are Planned 

As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated 

about $49 million to fund 5 completed, 7 ongoing, and 4 future safety 

projects, for a total of 16 projects. The goal of the safety research is “to 

prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes through more accurate 

knowledge of crash factors and of the cost-effectiveness of selected 

countermeasures in addressing these factors.” The SHRP 2 safety TCC 

expects that the collection of safety research projects will (1) provide 

 

20The recommended funding percentages in Special Report 260 were based, in part, on 

budget information from previous highway research studies. 

Page 13 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

objective and reliable information on driver performance and behavior and 

(2) help assess the risks associated with related crash factors. 

The 16 safety projects are part of two overall studies that are expected to 

produce a variety of data on driver behavior: the in-vehicle driving study 

and the site-based risk study. Most of these projects (15 of 16) and funding 

($48 million of $49 million allocated) relate to the in-vehicle driving study, 

also referred to as the SHRP 2 naturalistic driving study. This study 

involves the use of cameras, radar, and other sensors installed in the 

vehicles of about 3,000 volunteer drivers in six locations for 1 to 2 years.21

Collectively, the devices are expected to record (1) real-time video from 

multiple angles of each volunteer while driving (e.g., the driver’s face and 

interior views of the vehicle) and the driving environment (e.g., road 

characteristics and traffic) and (2) information about the vehicle (e.g., the 

vehicle’s speed and information on whether the seat belt is being used). In 

addition, researchers will record information on roadway conditions, as 

well as demographic data and data on other factors that may affect the 

drivers’ behavior. Overall, SHRP 2 staff expect this study will result in 

objective information on driver behavior that, for the first time, will allow 

researchers to determine the relative risk associated with various factors 

and circumstances related to the analysis of accidents, near collisions, and 

uneventful driving experiences.22

The oversight committee allocated the remaining $1 million for a project 

related to a site-based risk study. This project includes (1) a study to 

develop a portable, semi-automated video system and (2) a pilot field 

study, using multiple overhead video cameras, to record the relative 

position of traffic moving through selected locations to advance the 

understanding of driver behavior. While the intent of the naturalistic 

driving study is to passively observe individual drivers, the site-based 

study will allow researchers to observe multiple drivers at selected 

locations. SHRP 2 staff expect the project will allow researchers to 

observe how drivers resolve traffic conflicts; react to traffic controls, such 

as road signs and stoplights; and adjust to changing environmental 

 

21The naturalistic driving study will be conducted in six locations: Tampa, Florida; 

Bloomington, Indiana; Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina; Erie County, New York; central 

Pennsylvania; and Seattle, Washington. Data collection is expected to begin in the summer 

of 2010 and to continue until late 2012. 

22Because near-collision events occur more frequently than actual accidents, data on these 

events are expected to offer valuable insights into factors leading to actual accidents. 

Page 14 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

conditions, such as light, weather, and pavement quality. Figure 2 provides 

the projected budget and timeline, by research category, for the SHRP 2 

safety projects. 

Figure 2: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Safety Projects 

Source: GAO analysis of SHRP 2 data.

In-vehicle study or

naturalistic driving study

Site-based study

Safety projects, by category 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

15 projects, $48.2 million

Total $49.2 million

1 project; $1.0 million

According to SHRP 2 staff, the naturalistic driving study is expected to 

produce the largest and most comprehensive database on driver behavior 

available to date because, unlike most previous studies that generally 

relied on simulations and subjective post accident observations, the 

naturalistic driving study is expected to provide objective information on 

driver behavior in real-world circumstances. These data are expected to 

help transportation officials (1) better understand risk factors, such as 

driver distractions, associated with different crash factors, and, ultimately, 

(2) develop practical measures to effectively reduce collisions or 

otherwise improve highway safety. SHRP 2 staff stated that while some 

data analysis is planned (about $5 million), significantly more analytic 

work will be needed after the conclusion of SHRP 2 to fully realize the 

benefits of these data. According to these staff, future analyses of these 

data likely will lead to significant improvements in highway safety, 

particularly related to accidents that occur when vehicles run off the 

road—a major cause of highway fatalities.23 In addition, the safety TCC 

expects the results of the site-based project likely will lead to similar 

future studies that may provide more comprehensive information on, for 

example, accidents resulting from collisions at intersections, where many 

accidents occur.24 See appendix II for additional information on how these 

projects were reprioritized for funding and selected information about the 

currently funded safety projects. 

 

23According to Special Report 260, such accidents account for one-third of highway 

fatalities. 

24According to Special Report 296, such accidents account for 45 percent of all reported 

accidents. 

Page 15 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

About $32 Million Has 

Been Allocated for 28 

Renewal Research 

Projects; 27 Are 

Completed or Ongoing and 

1 Is Planned 

As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated 

about $32 million to fund 3 completed and 24 ongoing projects, and 1 

future project, for a total of 28 renewal projects. The goal of the renewal 

research is “to develop a consistent, systematic approach to performing 

highway renewal that is (1) rapid, (2) causes minimum disruption, and (3) 

produces long-lived facilities.” The SHRP 2 renewal TCC expects the 

collection of renewal projects will promote a systematic approach to 

highway rehabilitation and reconstruction (i.e., highway renewal) and 

result in quicker, more efficient, and improved repairs because the 

projects are designed to, among other matters, minimize travel disruptions 

and produce long-lived (i.e., more durable) facilities. 

Nineteen of the 28 funded projects focus on developing rapid approaches 

to highway renewal and are expected to reduce the time involved in 

preparing and executing construction projects. In total, the oversight 

committee allocated about $21.5 million (about 67 percent of total renewal 

funding) for these 19 projects. In addition, the oversight committee 

allocated about $2.5 million to fund 4 projects to minimize disruptions to 

travelers, communities, or utilities while renewal construction is under 

way, and about $8 million to fund 5 projects for producing more durable 

facilities needed to minimize the frequency of highway-related repairs. 

Figure 3 provides the projected budget and timeline, by research category, 

for the SHRP 2 renewal projects. 

Figure 3: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Renewal Projects 

Source: GAO analysis of SHRP 2 data.

Renewal projects, by category 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total

Rapid approaches

Minimize disruption

Long-lived/durable facilities

$32.2 million

4 projects, $2.5 million

5 projects, $8.2 million

19 projects, $21.5 million

The renewal TCC expects research in this area will promote rapid and 

durable highway rehabilitation and reconstruction and result in the 

production and implementation of various tools (i.e., hardware or 

technology) and techniques (i.e., strategies, procedures, 

recommendations, guidelines, or specifications). Overall, the renewal TCC 

expects 19 of the 28 projects will primarily develop tools, while the 

Page 16 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

remaining 9 will primarily develop techniques for promoting rapid highway 

renewal. Specifically: 

• To advance rapid approaches to highway renewal, 15 projects are 

expected to primarily develop tools, while 4 projects are expected to 

primarily develop techniques. For example, regarding tools, some of the 15 

projects are expected to produce technologies for efficiently locating and 

characterizing underground utilities. This is necessary because studies 

show that locating utilities, such as water mains and electrical and gas 

lines, is the most significant source of delay in highway renewal work.25

Regarding techniques, one of the 4 projects is expected to produce best 

practices and recommendations for addressing worker fatigue, which, 

according to SHRP 2 staff, can (1) negatively affect performance and the 

quality of work performed and (2) increase the potential for timeconsuming and costly mistakes, accidents, and injuries among workers 

who often are required to work for extended periods of time. 

• To minimize disruptions during renewal work, each of the 4 funded 

projects is expected to produce techniques for foreseeing and avoiding or 

mitigating travel disruptions. For example, 1 project is expected to 

establish cooperative strategies that help transportation agencies and 

utility companies effectively manage utilities throughout the renewal 

efforts, thereby minimizing disruptions to highway users and utility users 

in surrounding communities. 

• To produce durable highway facilities, 4 of the 5 projects are expected to 

primarily develop tools, such as technologies for designing and 

constructing bridges to increase the service life of bridges, while the other 

is expected to primarily develop techniques for preserving pavements to 

promote a longer service life. 

See appendix III for additional information on how these projects were 

reprioritized for funding and selected information about the currently 

funded renewal projects. 

 

25The SHRP 2 staff noted that accurately locating and characterizing underground utilities 

to protect or relocate utilities is a major, if not the primary, cause of delay in highway 

renewal projects. Such delays can extend the period of project development and delay the 

initiation of construction. In addition, damage to underground utilities can raise 

environmental, health, and safety concerns. 

Page 17 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

About $20 Million Has 

Been Allocated for 21 

Reliability Research 

Projects; 11 Are 

Completed or Ongoing and 

10 Are Planned 

As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated 

about $20 million to fund 1 completed, 10 ongoing, and 10 future projects, 

for a total of 21 reliability research projects. The goal of the reliability 

research is “to provide highway users with reliable travel times by 

preventing and reducing the impact of nonrecurring incidents.” Thus, 

projects in the reliability area are designed to address highway congestion 

caused by nonrecurring (i.e., relatively unpredictable) events—such as 

traffic accidents, work zones, special events, and weather. The SHRP 2 

reliability TCC expects these research results will help transportation 

practitioners provide highway users with reliable travel times by, for 

example, helping to ensure that an individual’s commute to work is 

consistently the same and minimally affected by congestion caused by 

relatively unpredictable events. 

The reliability TCC divided research in this area into four principal 

categories addressing different aspects of travel time reliability. The 

oversight committee allocated most of the funds, $11.6 million (about 57 

percent of total reliability funding), to 14 projects in two of the four 

reliability research categories—“data and analysis” and “institutional and 

human components.” Collectively, the 14 projects are expected to (1) 

develop data, analytical tools, and procedures for monitoring travel time 

reliability; (2) develop performance measures and models to evaluate the 

effectiveness of actions to control and mitigate the impact of relatively 

unpredictable events that cause congestion; and (3) identify how the 

institutional behaviors of transportation and public safety agencies and the 

human behaviors of travelers contribute to unpredictable events that 

affect congestion. 

The oversight committee allocated the remaining funds—about $8.6 

million (or, approximately, 43 percent of total reliability funding)—for 

projects in the three remaining research categories. Specifically, the 

committee allocated about $5.3 million to 4 projects for “incorporating 

reliability into planning, programming, and design” of highways. Further, 

the oversight committee allocated about $1.5 million to 2 projects to 

encourage the development of innovative ideas related to “future needs 

and opportunities to improve travel time reliability.” Finally, in November 

2008, the oversight committee allocated about $1.8 million for a project to 

produce a framework for integrating the results of the reliability research, 

potentially providing transportation decision makers and practitioners 

with a guide to (1) understand travel time reliability and (2) incorporate 

reliability strategies into their project planning and design. Figure 4 

provides the projected budget and timeline, by research category, for the 

SHRP 2 reliability projects. 

Page 18 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

Figure 4: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Reliability Projects 

Source: GAO analysis of SHRP 2 data.

Reliability projects, by category 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total

Data and analysis component

of reliability programs

Institutional and human component

of reliability programs

Incorporating reliability into planning,

programming, and design

Future needs and opportunities

to improve travel time reliability

Framework integrating

reliability results

$20.1 million

8 projects, $4.9 million

4 projects, $5.3 million

2 projects, $1.5 million

6 projects, $6.7 million

1 project, $1.8 million

Overall, the reliability TCC expects this research will develop and promote 

programs and strategies that monitor and improve travel time reliability. 

For example, one project focuses on developing guidance for establishing 

programs to monitor travel time reliability. Additionally, some projects are 

expected to use data collected from the SHRP 2 safety projects to 

understand how driver behavior is affected by relatively unpredictable 

events that cause congestion. Other projects are expected to develop 

measures for understanding the effectiveness of strategies used by 

transportation agencies, while some focus more on the managerial aspects 

of agencies, such as the identification of the optimal organizational 

structure to monitor travel time reliability. Moreover, the oversight 

committee funded 2 projects to incorporate some of the reliability 

research results into two widely used reference manuals for highway 

designers—TRB’s Highway Capacity Manual and AASHTO’s Policy on 

Geometric Design for Highways and Streets.

26 According to SHRP 2 staff, 

the inclusion of some of the research results into these reference manuals, 

such as research on cost-effective highway design features that can reduce 

the effects of relatively unpredictable events, represents a significant step 

toward the systematic implementation of the reliability research findings. 

SHRP 2 staff noted that the incorporation of travel time reliability into 

highway design, construction, and management is a relatively new concept 

for the transportation community. The staff said that they are hopeful that 

 

26According to TRB, the Highway Capacity Manual is the principal reference used by 

highway designers in making decisions about highway construction and operational 

improvements. AASHTO’s Policy on Geometric Design for Highways and Streets provides 

guidance on appropriate dimensions for highway facilities and is used to develop design 

guidelines for freeways, conventional highways, and urban streets. 

Page 19 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

research in this area will result in innovative methods for reducing 

congestion. See appendix IV for additional information on how these 

projects were reprioritized for funding and selected information about the 

currently funded reliability projects. 

About $21 Million Has 

Been Allocated for 20 

Capacity Research 

Projects; 13 Are 

Completed or Ongoing and 

7 Are Planned 

As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated 

about $21 million to fund 2 completed, 11 ongoing, and 7 future projects, 

for a total of 20 capacity research projects. The goal of the capacity 

research is “to develop approaches and tools for systematically integrating 

environmental, economic, and community requirements into the analysis, 

planning, and design of new highway capacity.” The SHRP 2 capacity TCC 

expects this research will promote a holistic approach to addressing 

highway capacity issues. 

The capacity TCC divided the capacity projects into two categories: the (1) 

development of a “collaborative decision-making framework,” to establish 

a decision-making process that includes environmental, economic, and 

social impacts of highway capacity efforts, and (2) “improvement in 

methods” to address common issues that arise during the design, planning, 

and execution of capacity-enhancing efforts. The oversight committee 

allocated most of the funds, $13.9 million (about 66 percent of total 

capacity funding), for 13 projects related to the first category of projects 

and $7.2 million for 7 projects in the second category. Figure 5 provides 

the projected budget and timeline, by research category, for the SHRP 2 

capacity projects. 

Figure 5: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Capacity Projects 

a

The SHRP 2 oversight committee allocated $0.25 million from reliability research to the capacity 

research area to incorporate strategies for improving travel time reliability into the decision-making 

process for highway capacity efforts. 

Source: GAO analysis of SHRP 2 data.

Capacity projects, by category 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total

Collaborative decision-making

framework and related projects

Improvement in methods

$21.1 milliona

7 projects, $7.2 million

13 projects, $13.9 million

The capacity TCC expects the outcomes of the 13 capacity projects to 

develop a framework for improving collaboration among transportation 

agencies, community and government stakeholders, and the general 

Page 20 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

public, which could result in more comprehensive, efficient, and informed 

decision making. Specifically, the collaborative decision-making 

framework is expected to (1) provide guidance to agencies at key decision 

points and (2) help transportation stakeholders consider a variety of 

issues throughout the decision-making process. The following issues are 

included in the framework: 

• community issues (e.g., comparative assessments of how alternative 

capacity efforts affect communities); 

• environmental issues (e.g., analyses of how capacity-enhancing projects 

affect greenhouse emissions and the effective protection of wetlands); 

• economic issues (e.g., assessments of matters, such as the expected 

increase in employment and tax revenue of highway capacity projects to 

the local economy); and 

• travel time reliability issues (e.g., the effective loss of capacity because of 

relatively unpredictable events that cause congestion). 

In addition, the capacity TCC expects the outcomes of the remaining seven 

projects will provide better methods for improving capacity efforts, such 

as models and analyses needed to assess the consequences of capacityrelated enhancements. For example, one project is expected to establish 

partnerships with local transportation agencies and develop and 

operationalize an innovative travel demand model for analyzing the effects 

of capacity management strategies. The capacity TCC expects that this 

project will help transportation agencies better understand how their 

management strategies affect highway capacity, such as how their 

decisions about speed limits or the use of reversible travel lanes affect 

congestion. Another project in this category is expected to help 

transportation practitioners understand the impact of highway tolls and 

other pricing strategies on highway congestion. See appendix V for 

additional information on how these projects were reprioritized for 

funding and selected information about the currently funded capacity 

projects. 

Page 21 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

As a result of SHRP 2’s reprioritization process, 50 of the 106 projects 

identified in 2003 were eliminated entirely, and many of the remaining 56 

projects that either evolved into, or were merged with, one or more SHRP 

2 projects had one or more aspects of their research eliminated from 

funding. As discussed, the reprioritization process was needed to adjust to 

funding and time constraints that had not been anticipated when the 

programs’ detailed project plans were developed in 2003. According to 

SHRP 2 staff, in the end, the oversight committee typically funded applied 

research to develop products critical to transportation agencies and other 

stakeholders—rather than many of the implementation-related activities, 

such as testing the research results in real-world settings. Thus, the 

eliminated research typically was for, among other activities, (1) 

translating research results into products (i.e., research applications), (2) 

training and dissemination of the research findings (i.e., technology 

transfer), and (3) providing technical support for implementing research 

products and technologies and for demonstrating new technologies (i.e., 

research implementation). 

Because of Funding 

and Time Constraints, 

50 of the 106 Projects 

Identified in 2003 

Were Eliminated 

Entirely, while Many 

of the Remaining 56 

Projects Had Portions 

of Their Planned 

Research Eliminated 

According to DOT and AASHTO officials and SHRP 2 staff, early results of 

the SHRP 2 research have been promising but likely would be enhanced 

with additional funding to restore some of the eliminated research. DOT 

officials and SHRP 2 staff explained that initial research results often 

require additional research and development in real-world trials before a 

usable product is ready for implementation. Thus, in their collective view, 

to fully achieve the original expectations for SHRP 2, it will be important 

to eventually fund some of the research that had to be eliminated because 

of funding and time constraints. SHRP 2 staff further explained that the 

sooner new research findings are implemented, the earlier that the 

performance and economic benefits of the research will begin to accrue. 

Similarly, in June 2008, the Chief Deputy Director of the California 

Department of Transportation (and AASHTO representative) testified 

before the House Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation that the 

ultimate success of SHRP 2 research will depend on widespread 

deployment. According to SHRP 2 staff, they are hopeful that other 

researchers will develop projects for implementing some of SHRP 2’s 

research after the program’s completion. 

The following sections provide information on some of the eliminated 

research. 

Page 22 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

Safety 

Of the 15 safety projects identified in 2003, 6 projects were eliminated 

entirely, including 2 of the 3 projects related to the site-based risk study. 

As discussed, this study was expected to use multiple overhead video 

cameras to record the relative position and motion of each vehicle passing 

through selected locations under different traffic conditions or with 

different signal phases (e.g., left turns and yellow lights) to evaluate the 

effect on the traffic. To complete the study, the SHRP 2 safety TCC 

originally anticipated that 3 projects would be funded to (1) develop 

technology and methods for data collection and conduct a pilot test, (2) 

implement the study in field tests, and (3) analyze the resulting data and 

assess the implications of these data. However, because of funding and 

time constraints, the oversight committee funded only 1 of the 3 projects 

and, thus, SHRP 2 will not, according to the safety TCC, result in a 

comprehensive assessment of the risk of collision associated with driver 

behavior. 

In addition, the 2 projects identified in 2003 for evaluating 

countermeasures were not funded.27 Overall, this research was intended to 

(1) address the effectiveness of existing countermeasures through 

rigorous, retrospective studies of accidents under different conditions, and 

(2) support the development of new countermeasures. The first of the 2 

eliminated projects was expected to identify and prioritize 

countermeasure issues for subsequent evaluations, while the second 

project would have evaluated the identified countermeasure issues to 

determine the associated benefits and costs based on retrospective crash 

data. A key requirement for both of these projects was the use of expected 

data from the site-based risk and naturalistic driving studies. However, 

because designing field studies requires substantial resources and time, 

neither of these projects was funded. 

According to DOT officials and SHRP 2 staff, the 2 site-based and 2 

countermeasures evaluation projects were dropped, in part because they 

expected more promising outcomes from the naturalistic driving study.28

AASHTO representatives agreed and told us that it would not have been 

 

27Countermeasures include key roadway design characteristics, such as grade and 

curvature, and roadway treatments, such as rumble strips, signage, and markings. 

28Additionally, according to SHRP 2 staff, the countermeasure projects were similar to 

other ongoing safety research. 

Page 23 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

helpful to reduce funding for the naturalistic driving study to, instead, fund 

other projects because a larger, more comprehensive data set on driver 

behavior is needed for developing new and improved countermeasures. 

Thus, given limited funding, the SHRP 2 safety TCC decided to allocate 

most of the safety funding toward the development of this data set. 

Finally, while the oversight committee funded all but 2 of the naturalistic 

driving study projects identified in 2003, that research also was affected by 

funding realities. Specifically, the study originally was intended to collect 3 

years of data from about 4,000 volunteer drivers. However, 1 year and 

about 1,000 volunteers had to be eliminated from the planned study 

because of the shorter time frame for carrying out SHRP 2. According to 

SHRP 2 staff, an additional year of research would have yielded about 50 

percent more data at little additional cost, since the equipment for the 

vehicles already would have been purchased. See appendix II for 

additional information on how the safety projects identified in 2003 were 

reprioritized for funding and the currently funded safety projects. 

Renewal 

Of the 38 renewal projects identified in 2003, 17 projects were eliminated 

entirely. According to DOT and SHRP 2 staff, the renewal area probably 

was most affected by the reprioritization process because many of the 

projects identified in 2003 were daisy-chained together and thus 

dependent on the completion or initiation of other related projects. Many 

of the 17 projects were eliminated for this reason, while others were 

eliminated because they were similar to other recent, current, or planned 

research. Additionally, given less funding and time than originally 

anticipated, the SHRP 2 renewal TCC decided that many of the 17 projects, 

including several projects for developing technologies and techniques to 

(1) continuously monitor the health and performance of bridges and (2) 

improve their maintenance with minimum disruptions to users, should be 

eliminated from funding consideration because they were of lower priority 

than other research projects. 

Further, while not entirely eliminated, some of the renewal projects 

selected for funding were reduced in scope, and implementation activities 

related to the research were not funded. For example, all of the renewal 

projects identified in 2003 that focused on innovative methods to locate 

and characterize underground utilities were scaled down because they 

depended on the outcomes of projects that had not been funded. In other 

cases, laboratory evaluations, field case studies, and demonstrations of 

proposed systems for improving pavements and bridges were eliminated 

Page 24 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

because related pilot projects for implementing the research were not 

funded. See appendix III for additional information on how the renewal 

projects identified in 2003 were reprioritized for funding and the currently 

funded renewal projects. 

Reliability 

Of the 33 reliability projects identified in 2003, 20 projects were eliminated 

entirely. As with the other areas, SHRP 2 staff told us that the reliability 

projects identified in 2003 needed to be reevaluated to fund as many highpriority projects as possible given available funding and time frames. 

According to the staff, the reprioritization of these projects was the most 

challenging area and, consequently, required the assistance of a facilitator 

to aid in the decision-making process. Because research for reducing the 

impact of relatively unpredictable causes of congestion and improving 

travel time reliability is new, the collection of SHRP 2 projects identified in 

2003 was expected to provide a comprehensive approach to collecting 

real-time information for use in assessing travel time reliability. However, 

given less funding and time than had been expected, the SHRP 2 reliability 

TCC decided to focus on high-priority projects needed to collect and 

analyze fundamental data for improving travel times for travelers. 

In addition, some of the 20 eliminated projects were designed to improve 

agencies’ response to relatively unpredictable events through the use of 

new technologies to (1) monitor traffic and roadway conditions, (2) 

instantaneously communicate information about incidents and work zones 

to highway users, and (3) provide information about transporting 

hazardous materials to better prepare agencies that respond to accidents. 

Furthermore, several of the eliminated projects were designed to study the 

effect of various weather and pavement conditions on travel time 

reliability. According to SHRP 2 staff, these and other reliability projects 

identified in 2003 had to be eliminated because of funding and time 

constraints for conducting follow-on projects needed to apply the research 

results and transfer the technology developed to highway practitioners 

and other users. Thus, according to the staff, field tests to demonstrate the 

usefulness of the research to practitioners, provide additional insights into 

how the results can be implemented by agencies and other users, and 

create more usable future products will be needed following completion of 

SHRP 2. See appendix IV for additional information on how the reliability 

projects identified in 2003 were reprioritized for funding and the currently 

funded reliability projects. 

Page 25 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

Capacity 

Of the 20 capacity projects identified in 2003, 7 projects were eliminated 

entirely. According to FHWA officials and SHRP 2 staff, the philosophy 

underlying this research area had to be completely reevaluated largely 

because the research planned in 2003 envisioned a much larger and 

broader scale of research. Specifically, many of the 2003 projects related 

to the development of a “virtual workspace” for highway planning and 

development intended to visually illustrate the effects of alternative 

planning approaches. According to SHRP 2 staff, the virtual workspace, 

once developed, would have facilitated simultaneous data transfer 

between highway practitioners at each step of the highway planning 

process. However, the SHRP 2 capacity TCC scaled down or eliminated 

most of the projects for advanced data gathering, access, and the 

computerized display elements that would be required for the virtual 

workspace, and, instead, decided to focus on research needed to produce 

the collaborative decision-making framework for highway planning and 

development. 

SHRP 2 staff told us that most of the scaled-down or eliminated projects 

were for research application and implementation, such as technology 

transfer. Specifically, regarding the application of research results, many 

of the eliminated projects were expected to (1) enhance public and 

stakeholder support for capacity-enhancing projects and (2) develop 

partnerships to provide training and implement the research.29

Collectively, these projects were intended to result in the systematic 

integration of environmental, economic, and community requirements into 

the analysis, planning, and design for enhancing highway capacity. In 

addition, while the currently funded capacity research projects are 

expected to result in the development of (1) a Web-based tool for using the 

collaborative decision-making framework and (2) manuals and tools to 

assist transportation agencies make more comprehensive and informed 

decisions, according to SHRP 2 staff, additional implementation, including 

technology transfer, will be needed to help ensure that the research results 

are widely implemented. See appendix V for additional information on 

 

29While many of the projects identified in 2003 involving partners, such as states and 

metropolitan planning organizations, were eliminated, according to FHWA officials and 

SHRP 2 staff, two of these projects were retained. The first of the retained projects involves 

field testing the collaborative decision-making framework, while the second involves fieldtesting approaches to mitigate environmental impacts. 

Page 26 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

how the capacity projects identified in 2003 were reprioritized for funding 

and the currently funded capacity projects. 

We provided a draft of this report to DOT and TRB for review and 

comment. DOT and TRB provided technical clarifications, which we 

incorporated, as appropriate. 

Agency Comments 

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional 

committees and members, DOT, TRB, and others. The report also is 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

David J. Wise 

listed in appendix VI. 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 27 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
 

List of Committees 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chairman 

The Honorable James M. Inhofe 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller 

Chairman 

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

United States Senate 

The Honorable James L. Oberstar 

Chairman 

The Honorable John L. Mica 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Bart Gordon 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ralph M. Hall 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Science and Technology 

House of Representatives 

Page 28 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To address our three reporting objectives, we reviewed the legislative 

requirements, goals, and objectives for the Second Strategic Highway 

Research Program (SHRP 2), including the Transportation Equity Act for 

the 21st Century; the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); and the SAFETEA-LU 

Technical Corrections Act of 2008. We also reviewed the Department of 

Transportation’s strategic plan for fiscal years 2006-2011, and the Federal 

Highway Administration’s October 2008 Strategic Plan and its Corporate 

Master Plan for Research and Deployment of Technology and Innovation. 

In addition, we reviewed and analyzed literature, studies, and reports 

related to the research program. Our review included reports by GAO and 

the Congressional Research Service that provided background information 

on the first Strategic Highway Research Program, SHRP 2, and the Federal 

Highway Administration’s research and technology program, including its 

federal-aid highway program. We also reviewed the Transportation 

Research Board’s (TRB) Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: 

Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life;

1

 Special 

Report 261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology;

2

Special Report 296: Implementing the Results of the Second Strategic 

Highway Research Program: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, 

Improving Quality of Life;

3

 and the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program’s Report 510: Interim Planning for a Future Strategic 

Highway Research Program.

4

 Finally, we reviewed quarterly, semiannual, 

and annual SHRP 2 reports; annual research plans for the four SHRP 2 

research areas; and report summaries of the funded SHRP 2 projects. 

To address our first two objectives (i.e., determining the process for 

selecting research projects for funding and the status of those projects), 

we reviewed the statutory requirements for SHRP 2 and reviewed available 

agency and program documentation. We also determined how the program 

 

1

TRB, Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing 

Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, (Washington, D.C.: November 2001). 

2

TRB, Special Report 261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology, 

(Washington, D.C.: December 2001). 

3

TRB, Special Report 296: Implementing the Results of the Second Strategic Highway 

Research Program: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, 

(Washington, D.C.: April 2009). 

4

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 510: Interim Planning for a 

Future Strategic Highway Research Program: Summary Report, (Washington, D.C.: 

October 2003). 

Page 29 GAO-10-248 Highway Research 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

is monitored and the program’s reporting requirements. In addition, we 

obtained and analyzed agency and program documentation on projects 

that were either funded or identified for potential funding in the 2003 

detailed research plans, as well as the revised plans for reprioritizing 

projects for funding. We also reviewed this documentation to identify how 

TRB plans to evaluate the research and how the outcomes of the research 

are expected to address highway challenges. 

To address our third objective (i.e., determining what, if any, planned 

research was eliminated from the program), we compared program 

documentation related to the currently funded projects with the four 

research areas identified in Special Report 260 and the projects identified 

in the 2003 research plans. We also determined how actual funding for the 

four research areas compared with the funding levels recommended in 

Special Report 260. Because of time constraints, we did not assess the 

appropriateness of funding decisions or projects selected for SHRP 2 

funding. 

To address all three objectives, we also interviewed agency officials from 

the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal Highway 

Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

and representatives from the National Research Council, TRB, SHRP 2 

staff, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO). 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 through February 

2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Page 30 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Appendix II: Safety Research Projects 

The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded many of the safety projects 

identified in the 2003 detailed research plans based on the 

recommendations of the SHRP 2 safety technical coordinating committee. 

As a result, 9 of the 15 safety projects identified in 2003 either evolved or 

were partially merged into the currently funded safety projects and 6 were 

eliminated. Table 6 provides information on the safety projects identified 

in 2003 and how they were reprioritized for funding. Table 7 provides 

information on the 16 currently funded SHRP 2 safety projects. 

Table 6: How Safety Projects Identified in 2003 Were Reprioritized for Funding 

SHRP 2 funding decision 

Safety projects identified in 2003 

Project evolved into 

SHRP 2 projectsa

Project had 

elements merged 

with other SHRP 2 

projectsb

Project was 

eliminated entirely 

Project 2–1.1: Legal and Privacy Issues in Recruiting 

Volunteer Drivers and Vehicles for Field Studies of Driving 

Safety 

3

Project 2–1.2: Development of Analysis Methods for SiteBased Risk Studies Using Recent Data 3

Project 2–1.3: Development of Analysis Methods for VehicleBased Risk Studies Using Recent Data 3

Project 2–1.4: Development of Comprehensive Roadway 

Information in a Geographical Information System Database 

3

Project 2–1.5: Application of Original Equipment Manufacturer 

Electronic Data Recorders for Risk Studies 

3

Project 2–2.1: Vehicle-Based Risk Study—Phase I: Study 

Design 

3

Project 2–2.2: Vehicle-Based Risk Study—Phase II: Pilot 

Study 

3

Project 2–2.3: Vehicle-Based Risk Study—Phase III: Field 

Study 

3

Project 2–2.4: Vehicle-Based Risk Study—Phase IV: 

Intersection Analysis and Countermeasure Implications 

3

Project 2–2.5: Vehicle-Based Risk Study—Phase IV: Road 

Departure Analysis and Countermeasure Implications 

3

Project 2–2.6: Site-Based Risk Study—Phase I: Study Design 

and Pilot 

3

Project 2–2.7: Site-Based Risk Study—Phase II: Field Study 3

Project 2–2.8: Site-Based Risk Study—Phase III: Analysis and 

Countermeasure Implications 

3

Project 2–3.1: Identify Countermeasure Evaluation Topics 3

Appendix II: Safety Research Projects 

Page 31 GAO-10-248 Highway Research 
Appendix II: Safety Research Projects 

SHRP 2 funding decision 

Safety projects identified in 2003 

Project evolved into 

SHRP 2 projectsa

Project had 

elements merged 

with other SHRP 2 

projectsb

Project was 

eliminated entirely 

Project 2–3.2: Retrospective Countermeasure Evaluation 

Projects 

3

Total 5 4 6 

Source: GAO presentation of TRB and SHRP 2 information. 

a

For the purposes of this report, projects that “evolved” are those that had their core research 

elements largely addressed in one or more funded SHRP 2 projects. 

b

Some portion or portions of these projects were merged to form one or more currently funded SHRP 

2 projects. 

Table 7: The 16 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Safety Projects, as of December 31, 2009 

Project 

number Project title Project cost

Start date 

(approx.) 

Completion date 

(approx.)

S01A Development of Analysis Methods Using Recent 

Data $300,000 2/05/2007 8/04/2009

S01B Development of Analysis Methods Using Recent 

Data 300,000 3/19/2007 4/30/2010

S01C Development of Analysis Methods Using Recent 

Data 300,000 2/05/2007 7/31/2009

S01D Development of Analysis Methods Using Recent 

Data 100,000 3/01/2007 5/08/2008

S01E Development of Analysis Methods Using Recent 

Data 300,000 3/02/2007 4/30/2010

S02 Integration of Analysis Methods 421,639 3/02/2007 1/31/2010

S03 Roadway Measurement System Evaluation 529,999 12/19/2007 12/31/2009

S04A Roadway Information Database Development and 

Technical Coordination and Quality Assurance of 

the Mobile Data Collection Project (S04B) 1,000,000 3/01/2010 5/31/2012

S04B Mobile Data Collection 3,500,000 10/01/2010 4/30/2012

S05 Design of the In-Vehicle Driving Behavior and 

Crash Risk Study 3,034,000 6/01/2007 10/31/2009

S06 Technical Coordination and Independent Quality 

Assurance for Field Study 6,200,003 11/01/2009 10/31/2012

S07 In-Vehicle Driving Behavior Field Study 16,489,644 4/01/2010 12/31/2012

S08 Analysis of In-Vehicle Field Study Data and 

Countermeasure Implications 5,527,953 9/01/2010 6/30/2012

S12 Data Acquisition System: Procurement quality 

assurance 154,864 10/01/2008 6/30/2010

S12A Data Acquisition System: Equipment and Vendor 10,000,000 9/22/2009 7/31/2012

Page 32 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Appendix II: Safety Research Projects 

Project 

number Project title Project cost

Start date 

(approx.) 

Completion date 

(approx.)

S09 Site-Based Video System Design and 

Development 1,041,898 2/28/2007 2/28/2010

16 Total $49,200,000

Source: GAO presentation of SHRP 2 information. 

Page 33 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Appendix III: Renewal Research Projects 

The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded many of the renewal projects 

identified in the 2003 detailed research plans based on the 

recommendations of the SHRP 2 renewal technical coordinating 

committee. As a result, 21 of the 38 renewal projects identified in 2003 

either evolved or were partially merged into the currently funded renewal 

projects and 17 were eliminated. Table 8 provides information on the 

renewal projects identified in 2003 and how they were reprioritized for 

funding. Table 9 provides information on the 28 currently funded SHRP 2 

renewal projects. 

Table 8: How Renewal Projects Identified in 2003 Were Reprioritized for Funding 

SHRP 2 funding decision 

Renewal projects identified in 2003 

Project evolved 

into SHRP 2 

projectsa

Project had 

elements merged 

with other SHRP 2 

projectsb

Project was 

eliminated entirely 

Project 1–1.1: Utilities Location Technology Advancements 3

Project 1–1.2: Geotechnical Solutions for Soil Improvement and 

Rapid Embankment Construction 

3

Project 1–1.3: Replacement of Conventional Materials with HighPerformance Materials in Bridge Applications 3

Project 1–1.4: Rapid Rehabilitation Strategies of Specialty 

Structures 

3

Project 1–1.5: Micropiles for Renewal of Bridge Foundations 3

Project 1–1.6: Needs Assessment and Implementation Plan for 

Developing a Comprehensive Intelligent Project Delivery System 

3

Project 1–1.7: Facilitating the Use of Recycled Aggregates 3

Project 1–1.8: Identifying and Reducing Worker, Inspector, and 

Manager Fatigue in Rapid Renewal Environments 

3

Project 1–2.1: Modular Bridge Systems 3

Project 1–2.2: Develop Bridge Designs that Take Advantage of 

Innovative Construction Technology 

3

Project 1–2.3: Modular Pavement Technology 3

Project 1–3.1: High-Speed, Nondestructive Testing Procedures for 

Both Design Evaluation and Construction Inspection 

3

Project 1–4.1: Performance Specifications 3

Project 1–4.2: Alternate Contracting Strategies for Rapid Renewal 3

Project 1–4.3: Incentive-Based Specifications to Assure Meeting 

Rapid Renewal Project Goals 

3

Project 1–4.4: Development and Evaluation of Performance-Based 

Warranties 

3

Project 1–4.5: Risk Manual for Rapid Renewal Contracts 3

Appendix III: Renewal Research Projects 

Page 34 GAO-10-248 Highway Research 
Appendix III: Renewal Research Projects 

SHRP 2 funding decision 

Renewal projects identified in 2003 

Project evolved 

into SHRP 2 

projectsa

Project had 

elements merged 

with other SHRP 2 

projectsb

Project was 

eliminated entirely 

Project 1–4.6: Innovative Project Management Strategies for Large, 

Complex Projects 

3

Project 1–5.1: Strategic Approaches at the Corridor and Network 

Level to Minimize Public Disruption from the Renewal Process 

3

Project 1–5.2: Integrating the “Mix of Fixes” Strategy into Corridor 

Development 

3

Project 1–5.3: Strategic Approaches for Financing Large Renewal 

Projects 

3

Project 1–6.1: New Guidelines for Improving Public Involvement in 

Renewal Strategy Selection 

3

Project 1–6.2: New Guidelines for Improving Business 

Relationships and Emergency Response During Renewal Projects 

3

Project 1–6.3: Utilities–State Department of Transportation 

Institutional Mitigation Strategies 

3

Project 1–6.4: Railroad–State Department of Transportation 

Institutional Mitigation Strategies 

3

Project 1–6.5: Context-Sensitive Designs and Construction 

Operations to Minimize Impact on Adjacent Neighborhoods 

3

Project 1–7.1: Design, Installation, and Maintenance of Work 

Zones for High Consistency, Visibility, and Safety 

3

Project 1–8.1: Durable Bridge Subsystems 3

Project 1–8.2: Design for Desired Bridge Performance 3

Project 1–8.3: Composite Pavement Systems 3

Project 1–8.4: Stabilization of the Pavement Working Platform 3

Project 1–8.5: Using Existing Pavement in Place and Achieving 

Long Life 

3

Project 1–9.1: Nondestructive Evaluation Methodology for 

Unknown Bridge Foundations 

3

Project 1–9.2: Development of Rapid Renewal Inputs to Bridge 

Management and Inspection Systems 

3

Project 1–9.3: Monitoring and Design of Structures for Improved 

Maintenance and Security 

3

Project 1–10.1: Preservation Approaches for High Traffic Volume 

Roadways 

3

Project 1–10.2: Bridge Repair/Strengthening Systems 3

Project 1–10.3: Techniques for Retrofitting Bridges with Nonredundant Structural Members 3

Total 16 5 17 

Source: GAO presentation of TRB and SHRP 2 information. 

Page 35 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Appendix III: Renewal Research Projects 

a

For the purposes of this report, projects that “evolved” are those that had their core research 

elements largely addressed in one or more funded SHRP 2 projects. 

b

Some portion or portions of these projects were merged to form one or more currently funded SHRP 

2 projects. 

Table 9: The 28 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Renewal Projects, as of December 31, 2009 

Project 

number Project title Project cost

Start date 

(approx.) 

Completion date 

(approx.)

R01 Encouraging Innovation in Locating and 

Characterizing Underground Utilities $389,993 2/12/2007 12/10/2011

R01A Technologies to Support Storage, Retrieval, and 

Utilization of 3-Dimensional Utility Location Data 1,000,000 9/01/2009 2/28/2012

R01B Multi-sensor Platforms for Locating Underground 

Utilities 2,000,000 11/03/2009 5/02/2012

R01C Innovation in Location of Deep Utilities 1,615,000 10/01/2009 3/31/2012

R02 Geotechnical Solutions for Soil Improvement, 

Rapid Embankment Construction, and 

Stabilization of the Pavement Working Platform 3,000,000 9/25/2007 9/24/2011 

R03 Identifying and Reducing Worker, Inspector, and 

Manager Fatigue in Rapid Renewal Environments 1,000,000 10/01/2009 3/31/2012 

R04 Innovative Bridge Designs for Rapid Renewal 1,999,052 10/08/2007 10/07/2011 

R05 Modular Pavement Technology (Phase I: 

$200,000 and Phase II: $800,000) 1,000,000 2/11/2008 2/10/2011 

R06 High Speed, Nondestructive Testing Procedures 

for Both Design Evaluation and Construction 

Inspection 350,000 3/16/2007 7/11/2008 

R06A Nondestructive Testing to Identify Concrete Bridge 

Deck Deterioration 750,000 3/13/2009 9/13/2011 

R06B Evaluating Applications of Field Spectroscopy 

Devices to Fingerprint Commonly Used 

Construction Materials 400,000 2/04/2009 2/03/2011 

R06C Using Both Infrared and High-Speed Ground 

Penetrating Radar for Uniformity Measurements 

on New HMA Layers 250,000 3/06/2009 3/05/2011 

R06D Nondestructive Testing to Identify Delaminations 

between HMA Layers 800,000 2/20/2009 8/19/2011 

R06E Real-Time Smoothness Measurements on 

Portland Cement Concrete Pavements During 

Construction 550,000 2/20/2009 8/19/2011 

R06F Development of Continuous Deflection Device 250,000 4/29/2009 4/28/2011 

R06G High-Speed Nondestructive Testing Methods for 

Mapping Voids, Debonding, Delaminations, 

Moisture, and Other Defects Behind or Within 

Tunnel Linings 1,650,000 9/08/2009 3/07/2012 

R07 Performance Specifications for Rapid Renewal 2,999,984 2/27/2007 2/26/2012 

Page 36 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Appendix III: Renewal Research Projects 

Project 

number Project title Project cost

Start date 

(approx.) 

Completion date 

(approx.)

R09 Risk Manual for Rapid Renewal Contracts 249,961 12/21/2007 6/20/2010

R10 Project Management Strategies for Complex 

Projects 1,250,000 9/01/2009 2/28/2012 

R11 Strategic Approaches at the Corridor and Network 

Level to Minimize Disruption from the Renewal 

Process 1,500,000 9/03/2009 3/02/2012 

R15 Strategies for Integrating Utility and Transportation 

Agency Priorities in Highway Renewal Projects 250,000 2/05/2007 8/04/2008 

R15B Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions 300,000 3/04/2009 7/03/2011 

R16 Railroad-DOT Institutional Mitigation Strategies 400,000 1/25/2008 10/30/2009

R19A Bridges for Service Life beyond 100 Years: 

Innovative Systems, Subsystems, and 

Components 1,999,637 12/21/2007 12/20/2011 

R19B Bridges for Service Life beyond 100 Years: 

Service Limit State Design 999,990 9/03/2008 3/02/2012 

R21 Composite Pavement Systems 3,999,999 9/04/2007 9/03/2011 

R23 Using Existing Pavement in Place and Achieving 

Long Life 999,540 2/11/2008 2/10/2011 

R26 Preservation Approaches for High Traffic Volumes 

Roadways 249,999 2/05/2008 4/04/2010

28 Total $32,203,155

Source: GAO presentation of SHRP 2 information. 

Page 37 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Appendix IV: Reliability Research Projects 

The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded many of the reliability projects 

identified in the 2003 detailed research plans based on the 

recommendations of the SHRP 2 reliability technical coordinating 

committee. As a result, 13 of the 33 reliability projects identified in 2003 

either evolved or were partially merged into the currently funded 

reliability projects and 20 were eliminated. Table 10 provides information 

on the reliability projects identified in 2003 and how they were 

reprioritized for funding. In addition, 4 funded projects, which had not 

been identified in 2003, were developed to fill research gaps or provide 

more affordable research alternatives. Table 11 provides information on 

the 21 currently funded SHRP 2 reliability projects. 

Table 10: How Reliability Projects Identified in 2003 Were Reprioritized for Funding 

SHRP 2 funding decision 

Reliability projects identified in 2003 

Project evolved 

into SHRP 2 

projectsa

Project had 

elements merged 

with other SHRP 2 

projectsb

Project was 

eliminated 

entirely 

Project 3–1.1: National and International Scans of Best Practices in 

Traffic Incident, Weather, Work Zone, and Special Event Management 

3

Project 3–1.2: National Outreach Program for Transportation 

Operations Practices 

3

Project 3–2.1: Data Requirements for Operations and Performance 

Monitoring 

3

Project 3–2.2: Establishing National and Local Monitoring Programs 

for Mobility and Travel Time Reliability 

3

Project 3–2.3: Analytic Procedures for Determining the Impacts of 

Reliability Mitigation Strategies 

3

Project 3–2.4: Incorporating Reliability Estimation into Planning and 

Operations Modeling Tools 

3

Project 3–2.5: Incorporating Mobility and Reliability Performance 

Metrics into the Transportation Programming Process 

3

Project 3–2.6: Quantifying the Costs of Travel Time Reliability 3

Project 3–3.1: Institutional Architectures for Implementation of 

Operational Strategies 

3

Project 3–3.2: Public Official and Senior Management Education 

Program on the Benefits of Improved Transportation Operations 

3

Project 3–3.3: Highway Funding and Programming Structures to 

Promote Operations 

3

Project 3–3.4: Personnel Requirements for Conducting Effective 

Traffic Incident, Work Zone, and Special Event 

Management 

3

Project 3–4.1: Advanced Surveillance Technologies for Operations 3

Appendix IV: Reliability Research Projects 

Page 38 GAO-10-248 Highway Research 
Appendix IV: Reliability Research Projects 

SHRP 2 funding decision 

Reliability projects identified in 2003 

Project evolved 

into SHRP 2 

projectsa

Project had 

elements merged 

with other SHRP 2 

projectsb

Project was 

eliminated 

entirely 

Project 3–4.2: Technologies to Communicate Traffic Control and 

Queue Propagation to Motorists 

3

Project 3–4.3: Systems for Tracking Hazardous Material Movements 

Nationwide 

3

Project 3–5.1: Improvement in Knowledge of Existing Weather and 

Pavement Conditions 

3

Project 3–5.2: Improved Forecasting of Near-Term Weather and 

Pavement Conditions 

3

Project 3–5.3: Using Road Weather, Safety, and Travel Reliability Data 

to Identify Ways to Improve Travel Time Reliability 

3

Project 3–5.4: Development of Better Mitigation Options for Weather 

Events 

3

Project 3–6.1: Identification and Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness 

of Highway Design Features to Reduce Nonrecurrent Congestion 

3

Project 3–6.2: Incorporation of Nonrecurrent Congestion Factors into 

the Highway Capacity Manual 

3

Project 3–6.3: Incorporation of Non-Recurrent Congestion Factors into 

the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design 

3

Project 3–6.4: The Relationship between Recurring and Nonrecurring 

Congestion 

3

Project 3–7.1: Quantification of the Causes and Effects of 

Inappropriate Driver Response to Adverse Weather, Roadside 

Distractions, Traffic Incident Scenes, and Queues 

3

Project 3–7.2: Measures for Reducing Inappropriate Driver Response 

to Adverse Weather, Roadside Distractions, Traffic Incident Scenes, 

and Queues 

3

Project 3–7.3: Improving Merging Behavior on Urban Freeways 3

Project 3–8.1: Delay and Reliability Impacts of Traveler Information 

Systems 

3

Project 3–8.2: Increasing the Credibility of Travel Time Predictions with 

Travelers 

3

Project 3–8.3: Near-Term Analysis of Traveler Information Market and 

Its Impact on Public-Sector Operational Strategies 

3

Project 3–8.4: Real-Time Data Fusion to Support Traveler Information 

Systems 

3

Project 3–9.1: Implementation of Alternative Traffic Operation 

Strategies 

3

Project 3–9.2: Advanced Queue and Traffic Incident Scene 

Management Techniques 

3

Page 39 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Appendix IV: Reliability Research Projects 

SHRP 2 funding decision 

Reliability projects identified in 2003 

Project evolved 

into SHRP 2 

projectsa

Project had 

elements merged 

with other SHRP 2 

projectsb

Project was 

eliminated 

entirely 

Project 3–9.3: Simulation and Gaming Tools for Traffic Incident 

Response 

3

Total 12 1 20 

Source: GAO presentation of TRB and SHRP 2 information. 

a

For the purposes of this report, projects that “evolved” are those that had their core research 

elements largely addressed in one or more funded SHRP 2 projects. 

b

Some portion or portions of these projects were merged to form one or more currently funded SHRP 

2 projects. 

Table 11: The 21 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Reliability Projects, as of December 31, 2009 

Project 

number Project title Project cost

Start date 

(approx.) 

Completion date 

(approx.)

L01 Integrating Business Processes to Improve Travel 

Time Reliability $397,789 2/25/2008 12/31/2009 

L02 Establishing Monitoring Programs for Mobility and 

Travel Time Reliability 1,800,000 3/18/2009 3/17/2012 

L03 Analytic Procedures for Determining the Impacts of 

Reliability Mitigation Strategies 1,749,998 2/27/2007 2/28/2010

L04 Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures in 

Operations and Planning Modeling Tools 1,250,000 2/06/2009 2/16/2012 

L05 Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures 

into the Transportation Planning and Programming 

Processes 1,500,000 2/01/2010 1/31/2012 

L06 Institutional Architectures to Advance Operational 

Strategies 1,000,000 2/28/2007 2/15/2010

L07 Evaluation of Cost-Effectiveness of Highway 

Design Features to Improve Travel Time Reliability 2,750,000 1/07/2008 1/06/2012 

L08 Incorporating Non-Recurrent Congestion Factors 

into the Highway Capacity Manual Methods 500,000 1/03/2011 5/31/2012 

L09 Incorporating Non-Recurrent Congestion Factors 

into the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design 500,000 1/03/2011 5/31/2012 

L10 Feasibility of Using In-Vehicle Video Data to 

Explore How to Modify Driver Behavior that 

Causes Non-Recurring Congestion 300,000 1/08/2009 4/30/2010

L10A, L10B, & 

L10C 

Using In-Vehicle Data to Explore How to Modify 

Driver Behavior That Causes Non-Recurring 

Congestion 1,200,000 1/03/2011 5/31/2012 

L11 Evaluating Alternative Operations Strategies to 

Improve Travel Time Reliability 1,000,000 9/03/2008 3/02/2010 

Page 40 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Appendix IV: Reliability Research Projects 

Project 

number Project title Project cost

Start date 

(approx.) 

Completion date 

(approx.)

L12 Training and Certification of Traffic Incident 

Responders 999,942 3/19/2008 6/18/2010 

L13 Requirements and Feasibility of a System for 

Archiving and Disseminating Data from SHRP 2 

and Related Studies 374,919 9/24/2008 3/31/2010 

L13A Design and Implement a System for Archiving and 

Disseminating Data from SHRP 2 and Related 

Studies 1,135,000 2/01/2011 1/31/2012 

L14 Effectiveness of Different Approaches: Traveler 

Information and Travel Time Reliability 1,000,000 9/01/2009 8/31/2011 

L15 Reliability Innovations Deserving Exploratory 

Analysis 500,000 6/01/2010 2/28/2012 

L16 Assistance to Contractors to Archive Their Data for 

Reliability and Related Projects 350,000 7/01/2010 2/28/2012 

L17 A Framework for Improving Travel Time Reliability 1,800,000 9/01/2010 2/28/2012 

21 Total $20,107,648

Source: GAO presentation of SHRP 2 information. 

Page 41 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Appendix V: Capacity Research Projects 

The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded many of the capacity projects 

identified in the 2003 detailed research plans based on the 

recommendations of the SHRP 2 capacity technical coordinating 

committee. As a result, 13 of the 20 capacity projects identified in 2003 

either evolved or were partially merged into the currently funded capacity 

projects and 7 were eliminated. Table 12 provides information on the 

capacity projects identified in 2003 and how they were reprioritized for 

funding. In addition, 2 funded projects, which had not been identified in 

2003, were developed to fill research gaps or provide more affordable 

research alternatives. Table 13 provides information on the 20 currently 

funded SHRP 2 capacity projects. 

Table 12: How Capacity Projects Identified in 2003 Were Reprioritized for Funding 

SHRP 2 funding decision 

Capacity projects identified in 2003 

Project evolved 

into SHRP 2 

projectsa

Project had 

elements merged 

with other SHRP 2 

projectsb

Project was 

eliminated entirely 

Project 4–1.1: Improving Our Understanding of Highway Users 

and the Factors Affecting Travel Demand 

3

Project 4–1.2: Improving Our Understanding of Transportation 

System Performance 

3

Project 4–1.3: Understanding the Contribution of Operations, 

Technology, and Design to Meeting Highway Capacity Needs 

3

Project 4–1.4: Improving Our Understanding of Approaches to 

Integrate Watershed and Habitat Fragmentation 

Considerations into Transportation Planning and 

Development, with an Emphasis on Highways 

3

Project 4–1.5: Improving Our Understanding of Interactions 

between Transportation Capacity and Economic Systems 

3

Project 4–1.6: Improving Our Understanding of the 

Relationship between Highway Capacity Projects and Land 

Use Patterns 

3

Project 4–2.1: Applying Location- and Tracking-Based 

Technologies to Collect Data for Systems Planning and 

Project Development 

3

Project 4–2.2: Applying Remote Sensing Technologies to 

Collect Data for Transportation Systems Planning and Project 

Development 

3

Project 4–2.3: Facilitating Systems Planning and Project 

Development via an Integrated Environmental Resource 

Information System 

3

Project 4–2.4: Improving Public Participation by Enhancing 

Project Visualization Tools 

3

Appendix V: Capacity Research Projects 

Page 42 GAO-10-248 Highway Research 
Appendix V: Capacity Research Projects 

SHRP 2 funding decision 

Capacity projects identified in 2003 

Project evolved 

into SHRP 2 

projectsa

Project had 

elements merged 

with other SHRP 2 

projectsb

Project was 

eliminated entirely 

Project 4–2.5: Developing and Applying a Decision-Support 

Tool for Integrated Systems Planning and Project 

Development 

3

Project 4–3.1: Integrating Environmental Stewardship and 

Enhancement into System Planning and Project Development 

3

Project 4–3.2: Integrating Economic Considerations into 

Project Development 

3

Project 4–3.3: Reducing Duplication and Process Delays in 

Planning and Project Development 

3

Project 4–3.4: Ensuring Support for Highway Capacity 

Projects by Improving Collaborative Decision Making 

3

Project 4-3.5: Improving the Quality and Timeliness of Projects 

via Better Public Involvement 

3

Project 4–3.6: Screening Transportation Solutions in an 

Integrated Systems Planning and Project Development 

Process 

3

Project 4–4.1: Improving Project Management during the 

Development and Delivery of Highway Projects 

3

Project 4–4.2: Improving Project Cost Estimates 3

Project 4–4.3: Satisfying Commitments and Meeting Customer 

Expectations in Final Project Design and Construction 

3

Total 7 6 7 

Source: GAO presentation of TRB and SHRP 2 information. 

a

For the purposes of this report, projects that “evolved” are those that had their core research 

elements largely addressed in one or more funded SHRP 2 projects. 

b

Some portion or portions of these projects were merged to form one or more currently funded SHRP 

2 projects. 

Page 43 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Appendix V: Capacity Research Projects 

Table 13: The 20 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Capacity Projects, as of December 31, 2009 

Project 

number Project title Project cost

Start date 

(approx.) 

Completion date 

(approx.)

C01 A Framework for Collaborative Decision-Making 

on Additions to Highway Capacity 

 4,249,994 2/09/2007 3/31/2012 

C02 A Systems-Based Performance Measurement 

Framework for Highway Capacity DecisionMaking 

 825,000 2/28/2007 10/30/2009 

C03 Interactions Between Transportation Capacity, 

Economic Systems, and Land Use Merged with 

Integrating Economic Considerations Project 

Development 

 2,149,997 1/15/2008 12/31/2010 

C04 Improving Our Understanding of Highway Users 

and the Factors Affecting Travel Demand 

 1,000,000 9/21/2007 6/10/2010 

C05 Understanding the Contribution of Operations, 

Technology, and Design to Meeting Highway 

Capacity Needs 

 1,000,000 1/07/2008 9/30/2009

C06A Integration of Conservation, Highway Planning, 

and Environmental Permitting Using an OutcomeBased Ecosystem Approach 

 700,000 9/03/2008 3/02/2011 

C06B Development of an Ecological Assessment 

Process and Credits System for Enhancements to 

Highway Capacity 

 792,648 10/10/2008 10/11/2010

C08 Linking Community Visions and Highway 

Capacity Planning 

 800,000 2/04/2009 8/03/2010

C09 Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the 

Collaborative Decision-Making Process 

 800,000 2/10/2009 8/09/2010 

C10A Partnership to Develop an Integrated, Advanced 

Travel Demand Model and a Fine-Grained, TimeSensitive Network 

 1,400,000 8/13/2009 2/12/2012 

C10B Partnership to Develop an Integrated, Advanced 

Travel Demand Model and a Fine-Grained, TimeSensitive Network 

 2,599,999 9/01/2009 2/28/2012

C11 Development of Improved Economic Analysis 

Tools Based on Recommendations from Project 

C03 

 200,000 9/01/2010 3/31/2012

C12 The Effect of Public-Private Partnerships and 

Non-Traditional Procurement Processes on 

Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and 

Collaborative Decision-Making 

 300,000 9/01/2010 1/31/2012

C15 Integrating Freight Considerations into 

Collaborative Decision-Making for Additions to 

Highway Capacity 

 300,000 9/01/2010 1/31/2012

C16 The Effect of Smart Growth Policies on Travel 

Demand 

 425,000 1/03/2011 3/31/2012

Page 44 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Appendix V: Capacity Research Projects 

Project 

number Project title Project cost

Start date 

(approx.) 

Completion date 

(approx.)

C18 Pilot Test the Collaborative Decision-Making 

Framework with Three State Departments of 

Transportation, Including a Self-Assessment 

Method 

 1,250,000 9/01/2010 3/31/2012

C19 Add Expedited-Schedule Case Studies to the 

Collaborative Decision-Making Framework Data 

Base 

 300,000 9/01/2009 8/31/2010

C20 Freight Demand Modeling and Data Improvement 

Strategic Plan 

 550,000 9/01/2009 2/28/2011

C21 Pilot Test Approaches to Environmental 

Protection (using projects C06 A and C06 B) 

 1,250,000 1/03/2011 3/31/2012

C22 Prepare Decision Makers Guide to Collaborative 

Decision-Making Framework 

 200,000 1/03/2011 12/31/2012

20 Total $21,092,638

Source: GAO presentation of SHRP 2 information. 

Page 45 GAO-10-248 Highway Research
Appendix VI: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 46 GAO-10-248 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Kathleen Turner, Assistant 

Director; Vashun Cole; Silvia Arbelaez-Ellis; Dana Hopings; and Amy 

Rosewarne made important contributions to this report. 

Highway Research 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(542158) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper