United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

TRANSPORTATION 

RESEARCH 

Opportunities for 

Improving the 

Oversight of DOT’s 

Research Programs 

and User Satisfaction 

with Transportation 

Statistics 

August 2006 

 

GAO-06-917 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-917.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Mathew Scire 

at (202) 512-2834 or sciremj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-06-917, a report to 

congressional committees 

August 2006

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Opportunities for Improving the 

Oversight of DOT’s Research Programs 

and User Satisfaction with Transportation 

Statistics 

In 2005, RITA took over RSPA’s responsibilities for overseeing DOT’s RD&T 

activities when RSPA was dissolved. While RITA’s mission and strategic 

objectives are similar to those RSPA had, RITA differs from RSPA in a 

number of ways. For example, RITA proposed a $2 million increase in its 

fiscal year 2007 budget request for the oversight of DOT’s RD&T activities 

through its proposed Transportation Futures and Applied Technology 

Program, which, among other things, would provide access to technical 

experts to RITA on a contract basis. Additionally, RITA’s responsibility for 

evaluation is less clearly defined than RSPA’s. RITA, unlike RSPA, is not 

required to measure the results or evaluate the effectiveness of RD&T 

activities. However, RITA is not explicitly prevented from evaluating such 

activities. 

RITA coordinates, facilitates, and reviews DOT’s RD&T activities through 

various practices. For example, RITA has two coordinating bodies—the 

RD&T Planning Council and the RD&T Planning Team—and conducts 

budget reviews, among other practices. RITA has not, however, established 

performance goals, a clear implementing strategy, or an evaluation plan that 

delineates how its coordination, facilitation, and review practices will 

further DOT’s mission or ensure the effectiveness of its RD&T investment. 

Without such a strategic approach, it is difficult for RITA to ensure that DOT 

is making the most of its approximately $1 billion annual RD&T investment. 

RITA has partially implemented four of our recommendations and has not 

implemented the other. For example, while RITA, through its two 

coordinating bodies, has taken some action to review RD&T activities for 

duplication and opportunities for joint efforts, RITA has not established the 

scope of RD&T activities to be reviewed, the methodology of the review, or 

how the results will be used to make decisions about future RD&T activities.

BTS does not have a systematic process for identifying its primary users, 

soliciting ongoing feedback from those users, and determining whether or 

how that feedback should be incorporated. For example, rather than identify 

specific users of BTS data products and services, BTS considers its users to 

be those broad categories of intended users described in federal legislation. 

Further, rather than routinely soliciting user feedback on all data products 

and services, such as through a customer satisfaction survey, BTS only 

solicits limited feedback from some users of specific products through 

conferences, workshops, or other meetings. Finally, BTS relies on its 

program managers to evaluate and determine how best to address feedback 

from its users; however, the managers are not required to—and often do 

not—report the results of whether or how they considered user feedback. 

Without a systematic process for identifying its users, soliciting ongoing 

feedback, and determining whether or how that feedback should be 

incorporated, BTS is limited in its ability to consider feedback and use it to 

make improvements to data products. 

The Department of Transportation’s 

(DOT) research, development, and 

technology (RD&T) budget totaled 

$1.1 billion in fiscal year 2005. DOT’s 

Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration (RITA)—which 

includes the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS)—

oversees DOT’s RD&T activities. 

GAO examined (1) how RITA’s 

responsibilities for overseeing DOT’s 

RD&T activities differ from those of 

its predecessor, the Research and 

Special Programs Administration 

(RSPA); (2) RITA’s practices for 

coordinating, facilitating, and 

reviewing RD&T activities; (3) the 

progress DOT has made in 

implementing GAO’s 2003 

recommendations on how to improve 

the coordination and evaluation of 

RD&T activities; and (4) how BTS 

identifies and monitors how well it 

serves its users. To address these 

issues, GAO reviewed relevant 

documentation and interviewed 

officials from RITA, BTS, and three 

operating administrations. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes several 

recommendations to DOT to enhance 

RITA’s ability to manage and ensure 

the effectiveness of RD&T activities. 

These include (1) developing 

performance goals, an implementing 

strategy, and an evaluation plan for 

RITA; and (2) developing a 

systematic process for BTS to 

identify its primary users and solicit 

and incorporate feedback from those 

users. DOT generally agreed with the 

findings and recommendations in this 

report. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results Summary 4 

Conclusions 11

Recommendations for Executive Action 12 

Agency Comments 14 

Appendix I Review of DOT’s Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration 16 

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 52

Table 

Table 1: Status of RITA’s Implementation of GAO’s 2003 

Recommendations 7

Page i GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Abbreviations 

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EAS Essential Air Service 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 

NHTS National Household Travel Survey 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OST Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

R&D research and development 

RD&T research, development, and technology 

RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

RSPA Research and Special Programs Administration 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

 Act: A Legacy for Users 

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

TSAR Transportation Statistics Annual Report 

UTC University Transportation Centers 

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

August 15, 2006 

The Honorable Christopher Bond 

Chairman 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and 

 Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Joe Knollenberg 

Chairman 

The Honorable John W. Olver 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban 

 Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent

 Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

In fiscal year 2005, the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) research, 

development, and technology1

 (RD&T) budget totaled approximately $1.1 

billion, including projects undertaken by DOT’s operating administrations, 

such as the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Aviation 

Administration. RD&T activities are vital to meeting DOT’s key 

transportation priorities, such as increasing transportation safety and 

enhancing mobility for all Americans. Prior to 2005, DOT’s Research and

Special Programs Administration (RSPA) was responsible for overseeing 

DOT’s RD&T activities, the Office of Pipeline Safety, and the Office of 

Hazardous Materials Safety. Over the years, GAO and others have raised 

concerns about RSPA’s capabilities for improving RD&T coordination and 

 1

OMB Circular No. A-11 (2005) defines research and development activities to include

“work undertaken on a systematic basis ... to increase the stock of knowledge, including

knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise 

new applications.” DOT defines technology to include demonstration projects and other

related activities associated with research and development activities. 

Page 1 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
evaluation across DOT, and, in 2003, GAO made several recommendations 

to improve those efforts.2

In response to these concerns and to help delineate and clarify roles and 

responsibilities for overseeing DOT’s RD&T activities, the Norman Y. 

Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act of 2004 (Pub. L.

No. 108-426) dissolved RSPA and created two new administrations—the 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration3

 (PHMSA) and the 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). RITA was 

created to provide DOT with a more focused research organization and to 

assist in avoiding DOT-wide research duplication and inefficiency, among 

other purposes.4

 The act also transferred the Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (BTS) and the Office of Intermodalism to RITA. Through this act, 

RITA is responsible for coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing DOT’s 

RD&T programs and activities, which include the activities conducted by 

DOT’s operating administrations as well as other RD&T and statistical 

programs managed by RITA (e.g., BTS, the Office of Intermodalism, and 

University Transportation Centers). 

In Senate Report 109-109, accompanying the DOT and related agencies 

appropriation bill for fiscal year 2006, the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations directed GAO to assess how RITA is resolving the 

concerns of its predecessor administration and better coordinating DOT’s

RD&T and statistical activities. Specifically, this report discusses (1) how 

RITA’s responsibilities for overseeing DOT’s RD&T activities differ from 

RSPA’s; (2) RITA’s practices for coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing 

RD&T activities; (3) the progress RITA has made in implementing GAO’s 

2003 recommendations; and (4) how BTS identifies its users and monitors 

how well it is serving those users. 

To determine how RITA’s oversight responsibilities differ from RSPA’s, we 

collected information through legislative histories, document reviews, and 

interviews with officials within RITA and used it to compare RITA and 

 2

GAO, Transportation Research: Actions Needed to Improve Coordination and

Evaluation of Research, GAO-03-500 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003). In this report, GAO 

uses the broad term “research” to refer to DOT’s research, development, and technology

activities. 

3

PHMSA includes the Office of Pipeline Safety and the hazardous materials safety activities 

formerly in RSPA.

4

H.R. Rep. No. 108-749 (2004). 

Page 2 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
RSPA with respect to mission, organizational structure, responsibility for 

overseeing RD&T activities, work activities, budgetary resources, and 

strategic goals. To determine RITA’s practices for coordinating, 

facilitating, and reviewing DOT’s RD&T activities and what progress RITA 

and RSPA have made in implementing GAO’s 2003 recommendations, we 

reviewed pertinent documentation and conducted semistructured 

interviews with officials in RITA, the Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation, and three of nine operating administrations that received

RD&T funds in fiscal year 2005. The three operating administrations we 

selected for interviews—Federal Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, and Federal Transit Administration—are among 

those with the largest RD&T budgets.5

 To determine how BTS identifies its 

users and monitors how well it is serving those users, we (1) identified 

criteria for monitoring user satisfaction, including federal and other 

agency requirements and guidelines set by DOT, the National Research 

Council, and GAO; (2) through document reviews and interviews with BTS 

and operating administration officials identified above, obtained 

information on BTS’s processes for identifying key users of its data 

products and for soliciting and incorporating feedback from those users; 

and (3) compared BTS’s processes to the criteria to identify major gaps. 

We assessed the reliability of the information contained in this report 

through interviews with knowledgeable officials and reviews of 

documentation and corroborating information, and we determined that it 

was sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted our work from

November 2005 through August 2006 according to generally accepted 

government auditing standards. This report summarizes the information 

we provided to your staff during our May 30, 2006, briefing and, in 

addition, contains recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation to 

improve RITA’s oversight of the department’s RD&T activities and user 

satisfaction with transportation statistics. The briefing slides are included

in appendix I. 

 5

Taken together, the RD&T budget authority for these three operating administrations 

accounted for over 80 percent of DOT’s total RD&T budget authority in fiscal year 2005. 

Page 3 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Results Summary 

RITA Differs from RSPA in 

Proposed Budgetary 

Levels, Responsibility for 

Evaluation, and Extent of 

Multimodal Focus 

Beginning in 2005, RITA took over RSPA’s responsibilities for overseeing 

DOT’s RD&T activities. While RITA continues to have a similar mission 

and strategic objectives as RSPA—and still does not have the authority to 

direct changes in the operating administrations’ RD&T activities—RITA 

differs from RSPA in several ways. First, RITA intends to focus 

significantly more resources in fiscal year 2007 on the oversight of DOT’s 

RD&T activities. In DOT’s fiscal year 2007 budget request, RITA proposes 

a new program—the Transportation Futures and Applied Technology 

Program—to build upon RITA’s existing RD&T Coordination Program and 

provide access to highly skilled, specialized technical experts to RITA on a 

contract basis. If enacted, funding for these two programs would result in 

an overall increase of about $2 million over the enacted fiscal year 2006 

budget for the RD&T Coordination Program—from $536,000 in fiscal year 

2006 to about $2.5 million in fiscal year 2007.6

 Second, RITA’s 

responsibility for evaluation is less clearly defined than RSPA’s had been. 

RSPA had both legislative and departmental responsibility for measuring 

the results of DOT’s RD&T programs and developing more efficient, 

effective, and participative ways to evaluate and measure RD&T program 

effectiveness.7

 However, RITA does not have the same legislative 

responsibility for evaluating DOT’s RD&T programs because the Safe,

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU)8

 removed the statutory responsibility for evaluation

 6

In RITA’s fiscal year 2007 budget request, the amount RITA requested for its RD&T 

Coordination Program ($247,000) is less than half of what was enacted for those activities 

in fiscal year 2006 ($536,000). According to the 2007 budget request, this decrease 

represents the transfer of multimodal RD&T initiatives from the RD&T Coordination 

Program to the Transportation Futures and Applied Technology Program. DOT’s

documentation does not provide a clear transfer of all of the multimodal initiatives from 

one program to the other; however, DOT officials told us that they plan to review all of the 

department’s multimodal initiatives as part of the Transportation Futures and Applied 

Technology Program. As of June 2006, the House Committee on Appropriations denied 

RITA’s request for $2.2 million for the Transportation Futures and Applied Technology

Program, saying that RITA should develop a more robust level of in-house RD&T expertise 

before it relies on outside contractors for multimodal research coordination and analysis. 

The House Committee on Appropriations also provided $540,000 for RITA’s ongoing RD&T

Coordination Program.

7

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), formerly codified in 23 USC 508.

Pub. L. No. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (1998). 

8

Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005). 

Page 4 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
activities that had been specifically outlined for DOT, which DOT 

delegated to RSPA. Under the Norman Y. Mineta Act, RITA is charged with 

reviewing DOT’s RD&T activities, which, according to RITA officials, 

means that RITA is not required to evaluate RD&T activities to determine 

whether they are achieving intended goals, although RITA is not explicitly

prevented from evaluating such activities. Third, RITA’s organizational 

structure is more multimodally9

 focused because the Office of Pipeline 

Safety and Office of Hazardous Materials Safety were moved to the newly 

created PHMSA, and the remaining offices in RSPA and other program 

offices—BTS and the Office of Intermodalism—were transferred to the 

newly created RITA. 

RITA Has Several 

Coordination, Facilitation, 

and Review Groups and 

Practices but Lacks 

Performance Goals and a 

Plan for Evaluating Its 

Own Efforts 

RITA coordinates, facilitates, and reviews DOT’s RD&T activities in a 

variety of ways, including through its two coordinating bodies—the RD&T

Planning Council and the RD&T Planning Team—and budget reviews, 

among others. The briefing slides in appendix I contain a summary table 

and detailed descriptions of RITA’s activities. RITA officials and officials 

from the three operating administrations we interviewed provided some 

examples of the usefulness of RITA’s coordination, facilitation, and review 

practices; for example, RITA officials told us that the budget review 

process results in a more consistent approach for the operating

administrations to show how their RD&T activities support DOT’s 

strategic objectives, secretarial priorities, and multimodal initiatives. 

Officials from all three operating administrations told us that RITA’s 

Program Review Working Group10 meetings provide them with 

opportunities to share best practices relating to program management 

issues, such as how to apply the Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) R&D Investment Criteria11 to RD&T activities. 

While RITA and other DOT officials provided anecdotal examples of the 

positive effects of RITA’s coordination, facilitation, and review practices, 

 9

Individual transportation modes include mass transit systems, roads, aviation, maritime, 

and railroads. RITA and its program offices oversee and conduct RD&T and statistical 

activities that apply to more than one mode of transportation. 

10The Program Review Working Group reports to the RD&T Planning Team and provides a

forum for the operating administrations to share information about areas of research and 

identify opportunities for coordination. 

11OMB developed the R&D Investment Criteria—relevance, quality, and performance—for 

all types of research and development programs across all agencies to assist in budget

allocation decisions and to demonstrate results. 

Page 5 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
RITA has not established performance goals or an implementing strategy 

that delineates how the activities and results of its coordination, 

facilitation, and review practices will further DOT’s mission and ensure 

the effectiveness of the department’s RD&T investment; in addition, RITA 

does not monitor or evaluate the effects of its efforts. Also, RITA has not 

worked with the operating administrations to develop common 

performance measures for DOT’s RD&T activities. RITA officials told us 

that they were working with the operating administrations to develop an 

RD&T strategic plan, which is due to Congress in the fall of 2006, but they 

did not expect the plan to include goals and measures, as discussed above. 

Setting meaningful goals for performance, and using performance 

information to measure performance against those goals, is consistent 

with requirements in the Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993 (GPRA).12 Developing an evaluation plan and analyzing performance 

information against set goals for its own coordination, facilitation, and 

review practices could assist RITA in identifying any problem areas and 

taking corrective actions.

13 Without such goals and an evaluation plan, it is 

difficult for RITA to determine its success in overseeing and ensuring the

effectiveness of DOT’s RD&T activities. Also, without common 

performance measures for the RD&T activities of the operating

administrations, RITA and the operating administrations lack the means to 

monitor and evaluate the collective results of those activities and ensure 

that they are achieving their intended (or other) results and furthering the 

Secretary’s and DOT-wide priorities. Linking performance goals with the 

planning and budget process, such as DOT’s annual budget process, can 

also help RITA determine where to target its resources to improve 

performance.14

 12Pub. L. No.103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). 

13Use of performance goals can help ensure that programs are meeting their intended goals,

allows programs to assess the efficiency of their processes, and promotes continuous 

improvement. Where activities may be fragmented or overlap, performance information

can also help identify performance variations and redundancies and lay the foundation for

improved coordination, program consolidation, or elimination of unneeded programs.

GAO, Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation 

and Program Overlap, AIMD-97-146 (Washington, D.C.: August 1997). 

14GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for 

Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005). 

Page 6 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
In 2003, GAO made five recommendations to DOT and RSPA to improve 

the coordination and evaluation of RD&T activities.15 The 

recommendations generally remain relevant for RITA. As shown in table 1, 

RITA has partially implemented four recommendations and has not 

implemented one recommendation. The briefing slides in appendix I 

contain more detailed information on RITA’s actions with regard to our 

recommendations. 

RITA Has Made Some 

Progress in Implementing 

GAO’s 2003 

Recommendations

Table 1: Status of RITA’s Implementation of GAO’s 2003 Recommendations

Recommendations Status of implementation 

Develop a strategy for reviewing all of DOT’s research projects to identify areas of unnecessary 

research duplication, overlap, and opportunities for joint efforts. 

• Include time frames for implementing this review and discuss the development and implementation 

of a DOT-wide research tracking system database. 

• Incorporate the results of this effort into DOT’s annual research plan and report to Congress on 

an annual basis. 

Partially implemented 

Develop and apply quantifiable performance measures to assess the effectiveness of research 

coordination efforts and document the results of these efforts in DOT’s annual research plan. 

Not implemented 

Develop a strategy to ensure that the results of all of DOT’s transportation research activities are 

evaluated according to established best practices. 

• Include estimates of the costs for ensuring that evaluations are completed.

• Incorporate the results of these efforts in DOT’s annual research plan and report to Congress on 

an annual basis. 

Partially implemented 

Include in DOT’s annual research plan a summary of all research program evaluations conducted 

and a schedule of future evaluations. 

Partially implemented 

Document RSPA’s process for systematically evaluating the results of its own multimodal research 

programs, and apply this process to any future multimodal research programs that RSPA conducts. 

Partially implemented 

Source: GAO analysis of RITA information. 

RITA has made progress, but much remains to be done for RITA to fully 

implement the recommendations. The following is a summary, for each 

recommendation, of the actions taken by RITA (and RSPA) and the type of

efforts that are still needed to fully implement the recommendations: 

• The first recommendation focuses on developing a strategy for identifying 

areas of unnecessary research duplication, overlap, and opportunities for 

joint efforts. While RITA officials have taken some actions to identify areas 

of unnecessary research duplication and opportunities for joint efforts 

through meetings of its RD&T Planning Council and Planning Team, 

 15GAO-03-500. 

Page 7 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
among others, none of these groups have developed a strategy that 

describes (1) the scope of the RD&T projects or programs that will be 

reviewed for duplication or joint efforts, (2) the methodology for how all 

research projects will be reviewed or how duplication or joint efforts will 

be identified, (3) a timeline and the frequency for reviews to occur, or (4) 

how the results of reviews—the identification of duplication or an 

opportunity for joint effort—will be used to make decisions about future 

RD&T activities.16 The first recommendation also includes the 

development of a DOT-wide research tracking system database, which, 

according to a RITA official, was dropped from DOT’s priorities after the 

creation of RITA. While RITA’s proposed Transportation Futures and 

Applied Technology Program includes the development of a Web-based 

database for DOT’s RD&T programs, it is uncertain whether this proposed 

program will be funded. RITA has not yet established a catalog of all of the 

research projects within DOT; as such, DOT officials do not have readily 

accessible data on research activities throughout DOT. Without such a 

strategy—supported by a comprehensive database of ongoing RD&T 

projects—RITA is unable to ensure that areas of research duplication, 

overlap, and opportunities for joint efforts are systematically identified 

and managed. 

• DOT and RSPA did not concur with the second recommendation in 2003, 

citing their views that (1) the most useful and effective performance 

measures focus on results, while coordination is a process and (2) that 

existing coordination processes have been effective in preventing 

unnecessary research duplication. While RITA officials told us that they 

have not developed or applied quantifiable performance measures for 

coordination because they do not believe that a metric approach is well 

suited for assessing the effects of the coordination process, they indicated 

their willingness to develop—in concert with the operating 

administrations—common performance measures for DOT’s RD&T 

activities. 

• The third recommendation calls for developing a strategy for ensuring the

evaluation of DOT’s RD&T activities. RITA officials told us that they 

ensure the evaluation of RD&T activities by reviewing the operating 

administrations’ application of OMB’s R&D Investment Criteria—

relevance, quality, and performance—through its budget review process. 

 16Strategies help align an agency’s activities, core processes, and resources to support 

achievement of the agency’s strategic goals and mission. GAO, Results-Oriented

Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, 

GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2004).

Page 8 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
According to RITA officials and OMB documents, the R&D Investment 

Criteria are rooted in best practices and include peer review as a 

mechanism for assessing program quality. However, RITA has neither 

developed nor communicated a strategy for this process that describes (1) 

the scope of RD&T activities of the operating administrations that RITA 

will ensure were evaluated according to best practices, (2) the 

methodology for how RITA will ensure evaluation of RD&T activities took

place according to established best practices, (3) a timeline for when the 

RD&T evaluations should occur, and (4) how the results of the RD&T 

evaluations will inform future research. Without such a strategy, RITA is 

less able to ensure the quality and effectiveness of RD&T activities and 

investments to determine whether they are achieving their intended (or 

other) goals.

• The fourth recommendation focuses on publishing a summary of research 

program evaluations and a schedule of future evaluations. RSPA, in its 

fiscal year 2005 annual RD&T plan, published such a summary, but it 

consisted only of the results of its reviews of the operating 

administrations’ application of OMB’s R&D Investment Criteria. This 

summary did not include other research program evaluations or a 

schedule of future evaluations. Since RSPA was dissolved, RITA has not 

continued to publish the results of these types of reviews because 

SAFETEA-LU removed the requirement for RITA to submit an annual 

RD&T plan. Publishing a current inventory of the evaluation of research 

activities and a schedule for future evaluations on a regular basis could 

provide information about research results and planned research for 

future years.

• The fifth recommendation addresses RITA’s process for systematically 

evaluating the results of its own current multimodal research programs, 

such as the Hydrogen Safety Program, and future multimodal research 

programs. While RITA officials told us they oversee contracts and evaluate

the results of RD&T activities that are conducted under these contracts 

through a peer review process, RITA has not systematically documented 

this process and it is not clear whether and how this process would apply 

to future multimodal research programs. Without a systematic process for 

evaluating current and future program results, RITA is limited in its ability 

to determine the extent to which its multimodal RD&T programs are 

achieving their intended (or other) goals. 

Page 9 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
BTS does not have a systematic process in place for identifying its primary 

users, soliciting ongoing feedback from those users, and determining 

whether or how that feedback should be incorporated. First, BTS has not 

established a systematic process for comprehensively identifying its 

primary users, it does not track specific users, and it does not have 

information on the overall number of users of its data products. BTS 

officials told us that their users are primarily identified in SAFETEA-LU, 

which only defines broad categories of data users, such as the federal and 

state governments. BTS officials told us they also identify some specific 

users through other methods, such as direct inquiries received through 

BTS’s Web site and by telephone. One BTS official also commented that it 

is difficult to track individual users, other than through Web site hits and 

tracking the number of publications ordered. Also, the official said that 

BTS is limited in its ability to collect information on individual data users 

because of privacy concerns. Without a systematic process for 

comprehensively identifying primary users for each of its products and 

services, BTS cannot solicit feedback from these users on an ongoing basis 

to improve those products and services. 

Secondly, BTS has not established a systematic process for soliciting 

feedback from all of its primary users, although it has used a variety of 

methods to obtain feedback from some users on a case-by-case basis. For 

example, rather than routinely soliciting user feedback on all data 

products and services, such as through a customer satisfaction survey, 

BTS receives feedback from some data users about specific BTS products 

from an online comment form and meetings and workshops held at 

conferences and training sessions.17 Without a systematic process for 

soliciting feedback on user satisfaction from all of its primary users, BTS 

cannot ensure it has a full picture of the needs of those users and how well 

it is meeting those needs, which, in turn, hinders BTS’s ability to make 

improvements to data products that are relevant to users. 

Finally, to evaluate the feedback BTS has solicited from its users, BTS 

officials told us they rely on program managers to determine how best to 

BTS’s Process for 

Identifying Its Users and 

Monitoring How Well It Is 

Serving Those Users Is Not 

Systematic

 17In the past, BTS systematically solicited feedback on overall customer satisfaction of

BTS’s data products and services through its Customer Satisfaction Survey. BTS conducted 

the last such survey in 1998. Also, in the past, BTS solicited feedback via comment cards, 

inserted in data products. According to BTS officials, the survey and comment cards are no

longer used as methods for soliciting feedback as a result of restrictions stemming from the 

Privacy Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act. BTS officials told us they are working with 

the Chief Counsel’s office at RITA to reinstitute the use of comment cards. 

Page 10 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
address feedback from its users; however, program managers are not 

required to—and often do not—report the results of how feedback on user 

satisfaction was considered. Although BTS measures the number of 

congressional and governmental agency contacts regarding BTS 

information and the average number of daily unique visitors to the 

TranStats data Web site,18 these indicators are only simple counts, not 

measures of user satisfaction with BTS information. GAO’s internal 

control standards suggest that ongoing monitoring take place to determine 

user satisfaction and that policies and procedures be put in place to 

ensure that feedback is evaluated so that improvements to products can 

be made.19 Without a systematic process for identifying the primary users 

for each of its data products and services, soliciting feedback on user 

satisfaction from its users, and incorporating that feedback, BTS is limited

in its ability to consider feedback and make improvements to data 

products based on user input. 

Since it became operational in 2005, RITA has taken some positive steps to 

meet its vision of becoming a departmentwide resource for managing and 

ensuring the effectiveness of RD&T activities. In particular, RITA 

established several coordinating bodies and review processes, and it has 

also proposed additional initiatives, such as the Transportation Futures 

and Applied Technology Program, to build upon its current coordination, 

facilitation, and review practices. However, RITA lacks performance goals, 

a clear implementing strategy, and an evaluation plan that collectively 

delineates how the activities and results of its coordinating bodies, review 

processes, and proposed initiatives will further DOT’s mission and ensure

the effectiveness of the department’s RD&T investment. Establishing these 

mechanisms for managing its own performance—and linking them to 

DOT’s annual budget process—could provide RITA with a clear road map 

for investing its own limited resources; enhance RITA’s ability to identify 

areas where its coordination, facilitation, and review efforts are working 

effectively and where they could be improved; and help RITA provide 

assurance that the department’s RD&T activities are adequately 

coordinated, routinely evaluated, and achieve their intended (or other) 

results. In addition, RITA and the operating administrations have not 

Conclusions 

 18Required by SAFETEA-LU, the TranStats data Web site contains hundreds of

transportation-related databases and is made available to the public on BTS’s Web site. 

19GAO, Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G (Washington,

D.C.: August 2001). 

Page 11 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
worked together to develop common performance measures for RD&T 

activities that are needed to evaluate the RD&T efforts departmentwide. 

With performance goals, an implementing strategy, and an evaluation plan 

for RITA—and common performance measures for RD&T activities—

RITA and DOT could be in a better position to assure Congress that DOT is 

making the most of its approximately $1 billion annual RD&T investment. 

Additionally, the strategy and performance measures could serve as a 

communication tool to establish expectations and anticipated results with 

the operating administrations. 

BTS, as part of RITA, has solicited and evaluated some feedback on user 

satisfaction, but it does not have a systematic process for identifying 

primary users of its transportation data products and services, soliciting 

feedback from those users, or incorporating the feedback it solicits. As a 

result, BTS cannot ensure that it has a comprehensive picture of who uses 

BTS data products, what their needs are, and how well the agency is 

meeting those needs with its data products. By establishing more 

systematic processes for identifying its primary users, soliciting feedback 

from those users, and evaluating feedback on user satisfaction, BTS could 

make more informed decisions on how to allocate limited resources to 

make improvements to its data products. While BTS tracks and reports the 

number of congressional and government agency contacts and the number 

of visitors to its TranStats data Web site, developing performance 

indicators that measure the overall degree to which products and services

are useful and responsive to the needs of its users will allow BTS to 

understand how well it is serving its users over time. 

To enhance RITA’s ability to manage and ensure the effectiveness of 

RD&T activities in furthering the department’s mission, we recommend 

that the Secretary direct the RITA Administrator to take the following 

seven actions: 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

• Develop and incorporate the following into RITA’s fiscal year 2008 budget

process, and the annual budget process thereafter: 

• performance goals and an overall implementing strategy that delineate 

how the activities and results of its coordination, facilitation, and 

review practices will further DOT’s mission and ensure the 

effectiveness of the department’s RD&T investment. The strategy 

should include an evaluation plan for monitoring and evaluating its 

performance against set goals to assist RITA in better allocating its 

resources to improve performance. 

Page 12 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
• common performance measures related to DOT’s RD&T activities, 

which should be developed in consultation with the operating 

administrations. 

• Develop and incorporate the following into RITA’s fiscal year 2008 budget

process, the annual budget process thereafter, and the upcoming RD&T 

strategic plan:

20

• a strategy for identifying and reviewing all of DOT’s RD&T projects to 

determine areas of unnecessary duplication, overlap, and opportunities 

for joint efforts. The strategy should address (1) the scope of the RD&T 

projects or programs that will be reviewed for duplication or joint 

efforts, (2) the methodology for how all RD&T projects will be 

reviewed or how duplication or joint efforts will be identified, (3) a 

timeline and the frequency for reviews to occur, and (4) how the 

results of the reviews—the identification of duplication or an 

opportunity for joint effort—will be reported and used to make 

decisions about future RD&T activities. 

• a strategy to ensure that the results of all of DOT’s RD&T activities are 

evaluated according to established best practices. This strategy should 

include (1) which RD&T activities of the operating administrations 

RITA will ensure were evaluated according to best practices, (2) the 

methodology for how RITA will ensure evaluation of RD&T activities 

took place according to established best practices, (3) a timeline for 

when the RD&T evaluations should occur, and (4) how the results of 

the RD&T evaluations will inform future research. 

• a DOT-wide database of all of DOT’s RD&T projects that will support 

RITA’s coordination, facilitation, and review efforts and will assist in 

the implementation of the strategies discussed above. Information on 

the status of these efforts should be included in the upcoming RD&T 

strategic plan to be issued in the fall of 2006. 

• a summary of all of DOT’s RD&T program evaluations conducted by

the department for the past 3 years, including ongoing and completed 

evaluations, and a schedule of future evaluations.

 20The following five recommendations reiterate and expand on four of the five 

recommendations GAO made to RSPA in 2003, with the exception of the recommendation

on quantifiable performance measures for RD&T coordination, which DOT did not concur

with, as previously discussed. 

Page 13 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
• a description of RITA’s process for systematically evaluating the results 

of its own multimodal research programs and how this process will be 

applied to future multimodal research programs that RITA conducts. 

To help ensure that BTS’s data products meet the needs of its users, we 

recommend that the Secretary direct the RITA Administrator and BTS 

Director to take the following action:

• Develop and implement a systematic process for BTS to identify its 

primary users, solicit and incorporate feedback from those users, and 

measure the satisfaction of its users. This process should contain the 

following elements: (1) that primary users of BTS’s data products and 

services are identified and documented in a comprehensive manner; (2) 

that feedback on user satisfaction is solicited on a periodic basis from 

those users; (3) that user feedback is documented and evaluated at BTS’s 

agencywide level and against established criteria, to ensure consistency in

decisions about what improvements should be made to data products; and 

(4) that performance indicators that measure data users’ satisfaction are 

developed and applied. 

We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from DOT officials, 

who generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. These 

officials also provided technical clarifications that we incorporated into 

the report, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees and to the Secretary and other appropriate officials in the 

Department of Transportation. We will also make copies available to 

others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge 

on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Agency Comments 

Page 14 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-2834 or sciremj@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 listed in appendix II. 

Mathew Scire 

Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 15 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and Appendix I: Review of DOT’ Innovative Technology Administration s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Review of the Department of Transportation’s Research

and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)

Briefing for the Committees on Appropriations

U.S. Senate and House of Representatives

May 30, 2006

Page 16 GAO-06-917 Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 17 GAO-06-917

2

Briefing Overview

• Introduction and Objectives

• Approach

• Background

• Results of GAO Work

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 18 GAO-06-917

3

Introduction

• In fiscal year 2005, the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) research, development,

and technology (RD&T)1 budget totaled approximately $1.1 billion. RD&T activities are 

vital to meeting DOT’s key transportation priorities, including safety and mobility. 

• Prior to 2005, DOT’s Research and Special Program Administration (RSPA) was

responsible for overseeing DOT’s RD&T activities, the Office of Hazardous Materials

Safety, and the Office of Pipeline Safety.

• GAO and others have raised concerns about RSPA—for example, GAO made several 

recommendations in a 2003 report to improve RSPA’s coordination and evaluation of

DOT’s RD&T activities. 

• In November 2004, the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement

Act (P.L. 108-426) dissolved RSPA and created two new administrations:

• the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). The Mineta Act 

transferred the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and the Office of

Intermodalism to RITA. 

• the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which includes the

Office of Pipeline Safety and the hazardous materials safety activities that were

formerly in RSPA.

1 OMB Circular No. A-11 (2005) defines research and development activities to include “work undertaken on a systematic basis ... to increase the stock of

knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications.” DOT defines technology to include demonstration projects and other related activities associated with research and development activities.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 19 GAO-06-917

4

Objectives

• In response to a mandate from the Senate and House Appropriations 

Committees, GAO addressed the following questions:

1. How, if at all, do RITA’s responsibilities for overseeing DOT’s

RD&T activities differ from RSPA’s?

2. What are RITA’s practices for coordinating, facilitating, and 

reviewing RD&T activities and what progress has RITA made in 

implementing GAO’s 2003 recommendations?

3. How does BTS identify its users and monitor how well it is

serving those users?

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 20 GAO-06-917

5

Overall Approach

• Legislative & Document Review - Reviewed laws and DOT documentation to

understand RSPA’s and RITA’s responsibilities and BTS’ legislative requirements for 

producing certain data.

• Interviews - Interviewed DOT officials in: RITA, including the RD&T Office, BTS, and 

others; three operating administrations that conduct and manage significant research

programs, including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA); and the Office of the

Secretary (OST).

• Recommendation Follow-up - Reviewed the extent to which RITA (and RSPA) have

addressed the recommendations in GAO’s 2003 report.

2

• Analysis of selected Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ (BTS) processes - Analyzed

BTS’ processes for identifying its data users and for monitoring and incorporating feedback

on user satisfaction and compared those processes to relevant criteria.

• We conducted our work from November 2005 through May 2006 according to generally

accepted government auditing standards.

2 GAO, Transportation Research: Actions Needed to Improve Coordination and Evaluation of Research, GAO-03-500 (Washington, D.C.: May 1,

2003).

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 21 GAO-06-917

6

Results in Brief

• RITA took over RSPA's responsibilities for overseeing DOT's RD&T activities. While RITA

continues to have a similar mission and strategic objectives as RSPA, it still does not have

the authority to direct changes in the operating administrations’ RD&T activities. RITA

differs from RSPA in several ways—RITA intends to focus significantly more resources in

fiscal year 2007 on the oversight of DOT’s RD&T activities; RITA’s authority for evaluation

is less clearly defined; and RITA’s organizational structure is more multi-modally focused.

• RITA coordinates, facilitates, and reviews DOT’s RD&T activities through multiple groups

and practices, including its two coordinating bodies—the RD&T Planning Council and the 

RD&T Planning Team—and budget reviews, among others. Of the five recommendations

GAO made in 2003 on how to improve the coordination and evaluation of RD&T activities,

RITA has partially implemented four of the recommendations and has not implemented the 

other.

• BTS does not have a systematic process in place for identifying its users, soliciting ongoing feedback from all its major users, and determining whether or how that feedback

should be incorporated.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 22 GAO-06-917

7

Background: RITA’s

legislative responsibilities

The Norman Y. Mineta Act lays out five broad responsibilities for RITA: 

• Coordination, facilitation, and review of DOT’s research and development

programs and activities;

• Comprehensive transportation statistics research, analysis, and reporting;

• Advancement, and research and development, of innovative technologies, 

including intelligent transportation systems;

• Education and training in transportation and transportation-related fields; 

and

• Activities of the Volpe National Transportation Center, which conducts a

range of transportation research and development projects on a fee-forservice basis.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 23 GAO-06-917

8

Background: Scope of

RITA’s authority

• RITA’s Office of RD&T is responsible for “coordinating, facilitating, and 

reviewing” DOT’s RD&T activities.

• According to the Norman Y. Mineta Act, RITA’s scope of authority includes

coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing all of the Department's RD&T programs

and activities, with one exemption—RITA was not given any authority over the 

research and other programs, activities, standards, or regulations administered

by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

• The exemption does not apply to NHTSA’s activities already in effect on 

November 30, 2004, the date of the Mineta Act’s enactment.

• Officials in RITA’s Office of RD&T told us that in spite of the NHTSA

exemption in the Mineta Act, NHTSA voluntarily participates in all of RITA’s

coordination, facilitation, and review activities. 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 24 GAO-06-917

9

Background: DOT’s 

RD&T budget

Nearly all RD&T budget authority resides in the operating administrations, such as

FHWA and FAA. RITA’s RD&T budget in fiscal year 2005 was about $1.9 million

and its enacted budget in fiscal year 2006 is about $2.5 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT budget data.

DOT’s RD&T Budget

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Research& Innovative Technology Admin.

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin.

Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Admin.

Federal Railroad Administration

Federal Transit Admin.

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Federal Aviation Admin.

Federal Highway Administration

(millions of dollars)

FY 2005 Actual FY 2006 Enacted

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 25 GAO-06-917

10

Background: BTS’ mission

and legislative requirements

• The mission of BTS—a principal federal statistical agency established in 1992—is to

develop high quality transportation data and information and advance the use of this data

and information in both public and private transportation decision-making.

• BTS’ legislative requirements in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) include, among others:

• Coordinating collection of information with the operating administrations within DOT 

and with other federal agencies;

• Issuing guidelines for the collection of statistical information by DOT;

• Reviewing and reporting on the sources and reliability of the statistics proposed by

the operating administrations as requested by the Secretary; and

• Submitting to the President and Congress a Transportation Statistics Annual Report

(TSAR).

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 26 GAO-06-917

11

Objective 1: Similarities between

RITA and RSPA

• RITA, like RSPA before it, has the responsibility to oversee DOT’s

RD&T activities but does not have the authority to direct changes in the 

operating administrations’ RD&T activities, including budgetary changes. 

• RITA’s mission, like RSPA's before it, is focused on using research to

meet DOT’s goals, including enhancing transportation safety and 

efficiency. 

• Two of RITA’s three strategic goals--providing research and analytical

capabilities dedicated to furthering DOT’s mission and promoting

multimodal, cross-cutting transportation technologies and innovations—

are similar to RSPA’s goals. RITA’s third strategic goal is to ensure the 

effectiveness of the public investment in transportation RD&T.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 27 GAO-06-917

12

Differences between RITA and RSPA:

RITA’s organizational structure is more 

multi-modally focused

The organizational structure of RITA is more multi-modally focused because the Office of 

Pipeline Safety and hazardous materials safety activities were moved to a new 

administration—the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)—and 

the remaining and new program offices—BTS and the Office of Intermodalism—now within

RITA, all have a multi-modal focus.

RSPA RITA

Office of

RD&T7

Office of

RD&T7 BTBTSS Other Other66

VoVolpelpe TSTSII

Hazard.

Materials

Hazard.

Materials

Innovation, 

Research 

& Educ.

Innovation, 

Research 

& Educ.

VoVolpelpe TSTSII

Other Pip Other66 eline

Safety

Pipeline

Safety

= moved to PHMSA

= moved into RITA

= The Volpe Center and the Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) are funded through a fee-for-service structure, in which all

costs are covered by sponsored project work.

6 Other functions include management and administration, General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, and governmental affairs. 7 The Office of Intermodalism is within the Office of RD&T.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 28 GAO-06-917

13

Differences between RITA and RSPA:

RITA intends to focus significantly more resources

on its oversight of DOT’s RD&T activities

• RITA’s fiscal year 2007 budget request proposes a new program—the Transportation 

Futures and Applied Technology Program—to undertake certain oversight and 

coordination activities, and also continues RITA’s existing RD&T Coordination program. If 

enacted, funding for these two programs would result in an overall increase of about $2

million over the enacted fiscal year 2006 budget for RD&T Coordination—from $536,000 in

fiscal year 2006 to about $2.5 million in fiscal year 2007—although the Transportation 

Futures and Applied Technology Program also funds activities other than coordination.3

• According to senior DOT officials in OST and RITA, although the Transportation Futures 

and Applied Technology Program and the RD&T Coordination program were listed as

separate programs in DOT’s 2007 budget request, DOT views them as one unified

program, with the intent that the Transportation Futures and Applied Technology Program

will build on and enhance the existing RD&T Coordination program. A significant element 

of the funding request for the Transportation Futures and Applied Technology Program is

to enable RITA to have access to highly skilled, specialized technical experts that RITA

views as critical to enhancing its ability to effectively coordinate, facilitate, and review 

DOT’s RD&T activities and enable RITA to more fully participate in strategic planning,

priority setting, and decision-making related to those activities. Further, both programs are 

requesting funding to support intermodal and interagency teams that are working to better

leverage research results and advance the collaborative integration and deployment of

new technologies.

3 These other activities include conducting technology scans and accelerating the deployment of technologies and innovations to users.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 29 GAO-06-917

14

Differences between RITA and RSPA: 

RITA intends to focus significantly more resources 

on its oversight of DOT’s RD&T activities, continued

• The presentation of RITA’s fiscal year 2007 budget request does not provide sufficient

detail to determine the total amounts of funding that RITA is requesting for the two

programs since the budget only shows the amount of proposed contract dollars for the two 

programs, including $2.2 million for the Transportation Futures and Applied Technology

Program and $247,000 for the RD&T Coordination program. The 2007 budget request 

also shows that RITA is requesting about $5.2 million for salaries and administrative

expenses for all research and development activities, but it does not specify what portion 

of that amount will be dedicated to the two programs.

• The amount that RITA requested for its RD&T Coordination Program in fiscal year 2007

($247,000) is less than half of what was enacted for those activities in fiscal year 2006

($536,000). According to the 2007 budget request, this decrease represents the transfer of

cross-modal RD&T initiatives from the RD&T Coordination program to the Transportation 

Futures and Applied Technology Program. DOT’s documentation does not provide a clear

cross-walk showing the transfer of all the cross-modal initiatives from one program to the

other. However, a senior official in OST told us that DOT plans to review all of its crossmodal initiatives as part of the Transportation Futures and Applied Technology Program

for the purpose of re-focusing them to ensure they are addressing the most important

DOT-wide research priorities. 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 30 GAO-06-917

15

Differences between RITA and RSPA:

RITA’s authority for evaluation is less clearly defined

• RSPA had both legislative and departmental responsibility for evaluating DOT’s RD&T

programs; specifically RSPA was required to:

• measure the results of federal transportation research activities and how those

activities impact the performance of the surface transportation systems of the United 

States4 and 

• oversee DOT’s RD&T programs and develop more efficient, effective, and 

participative ways to evaluate and measure program effectiveness and progress

across all operating administrations and other selected projects.

5

• RITA does not have the same legislative responsibility for evaluating DOT’s RD&T 

programs because SAFETEA-LU removed the statutory responsibility for evaluation 

activities that had been specifically outlined for DOT, which DOT delegated to RSPA.

• RITA officials told us that their interpretation of “review” authority under the Norman Y.

Mineta Act is that RITA is not required to evaluate RD&T activities to determine whether

they are achieving intended goals, although RITA is not explicitly prevented from

evaluating such activities.

4 As stated in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), formerly codified in 23 USC 508.

5 DOT policy delegated this responsibility to RSPA.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 31 GAO-06-917

16

Objective 2: RITA’s Coordination, 

Facilitation, and Review Practices

RITA’s Office of RD&T coordinates, facilitates, and reviews DOT’s RD&T activities through

various groups/practices, as summarized below:

Source: GAO analysis of RITA information.

8 OMB developed the R&D Investment Criteria—quality, relevance, and performance—for all types of R&D programs across all agencies to assist

in budget allocation decisions and to demonstrate results.

Group / Process Function Participants

RD&T Planning Council Advises the DOT Secretary on RD&T policies and priorities necessary to support the DOT

Strategic Plan and Administration and Secretarial policy and objectives. Ensures cross-modal

collaboration and coordination in RD&T initiatives within DOT and with external entities. Reports 

to the Secretary.

Operating Administrators,

the Undersecretary for

Policy, OST; Chair, RITA

Administrator

RD&T Planning Team Assists the RD&T Planning Council and the RITA Administrator in ensuring cross-modal

collaboration and coordination in DOT’s RD&T initiatives. Assures the application of

Administration and Secretarial RD&T priorities and policies and guidance from the RD&T 

Planning Council. 

Associate Operating 

Administrators for RD&T,

OST; Chair, RITA’s

Associate Administrator 

for RD&T

Program Review

Working Group 

Conducts the annual review of modal RD&T programs to ensure they are aligned with DOT 

strategic goals and implement the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Research and 

Development (R&D) investment criteria.

8

 Reports to RD&T Planning Team.

Operating Administrations’

RD&T managers 

Budget Review RITA’s annual assessment of the operating administrations’ RD&T budget—first performed on

fiscal year 2007 budget submissions--to ensure alignment with DOT’s strategic objectives, 

Secretarial priorities, and cross-modal initiatives and proper application of OMB’s R&D

Investment Criteria. 

RITA, Operating 

Administrations, OST’s

Budget Office

University

Transportation Centers

Program

Advances U.S. technology and expertise in transportation through the mechanisms of education,

research and technology transfer at university-based centers of excellence. RITA administers

grants (mostly legislatively designated) to universities. 

RITA, Operating 

Administrations 

Peer Review Task

Force and Steering 

Committee 

Coordinates the implementation of OMB’s Information Quality Bulletin on Peer Review for

influential and highly influential research (as determined by the agency or OMB) and oversees 

compliance with these requirements. Prepares annual report to OMB.

RITA, Operating 

Administrations’ RD&T 

managers, Data Quality 

experts.

RD&T Strategic

Planning Task Force 

Develops the details of the RD&T Strategic Plan due to Congress in the fall of 2006. The draft

plan will be reviewed by the National Research Council in June 2006.

RITA, Operating 

Administrations’ RD&T 

managers 

Various multi-modal

RD&T groups managed 

by RITA 

Examples include:

• Hydrogen Working Group which coordinates, facilitates and informs all RD&T activities

related to hydrogen fueled and fuel cell powered vehicles and stationary applications. 

• Center for Climate Change which shares information, builds partnerships, and coordinates

activities related to climate change. 

RITA, Operating 

Administrations’ policy 

and technical staff and 

other representatives 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 32 GAO-06-917

17

RITA’s Coordination, Facilitation, 

and Review Practices, continued

• RD&T Planning Council

• According to DOT Order 1120.39A, the Planning Council is to meet quarterly. The Planning 

Council has convened three times, most recently on May 15, 2006. RITA officials told us the 

Council expects to meet more regularly as it reviews the development of the draft RD&T Strategic

Plan before it is submitted to Congress—several meetings have been scheduled for the summer

of 2006. 

• According to the Planning Council’s meeting minutes from May and June, 2005, the Planning

Council reviewed and approved the RD&T budget guidance that was distributed to the operating 

administrations and discussed future strategic directions for DOT research, the fiscal year 2007

RD&T budget submissions, and other topics.

• RD&T Planning Team

• According to DOT Order 1120.39A, the Planning Team is to meet quarterly, which it has done.

The Planning Team has convened four times, most recently in February 2006, and another 

meeting is scheduled for May 24, 2006.

• According to the Planning Team’s meeting minutes from June and November, 2005 and February, 

2006, the Planning Team discussed results of RITA’s budget review for fiscal year 2007, effects of

SAFETEA-LU on research programs, and updates on the development of the RD&T strategic plan

and the University Transportations Centers program.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 33 GAO-06-917

18

RITA’s Coordination, Facilitation, 

and Review Practices, continued

• Program Review Working Group: 

• Established through a DOT Order that allowed the RD&T Planning Team to create ad hoc working

groups, this group met nine times during 2005 and 2006 (as of April). The group provides a forum

for the operating administrations to share information about areas of research and identify

opportunities for coordination. The group also schedules presentations throughout the year which

it shares with the RD&T Planning Team. Past presentations have addressed how the operating

administrations have applied OMB’s R&D Investment Criteria to their RD&T activities and how the 

operating administrations’ RD&T activities support DOT’s and the Secretary’s strategic priorities.

• Budget Review

• In preparation for their first budget review, RITA officials developed the 2007 RD&T budget

guidance for the operating administrations, advising them to include discussions of how their 

RD&T activities are linked to the Secretary’s priorities and how they have applied OMB’s R&D

Investment Criteria. This guidance was reviewed by the Planning Team, approved by the Planning

Council, and distributed by OST’s Budget Office. 

• The results of RITA’s budget review were discussed at the June 2005 Planning Council meeting.

Also, RITA developed recommendations—to DOT’s Assistant Secretary for Budget and 

Programs/Chief Financial Officer—that RITA continue to work with the operating administrations 

to improve the Department’s RD&T budget submissions and that RITA develop guidance for 

defining RD&T to ensure consistency in the way that the Department classifies and accounts for 

its RD&T programs. 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 34 GAO-06-917

19

RITA’s Coordination, Facilitation, 

and Review Practices, continued

• Management of the University Transportation Centers (UTC) Program9 

• RITA’s RD&T Office manages the UTC program, which was significantly expanded by SAFETEALU. 

• SAFETEA-LU authorized up to about $76.7 million per year for UTC grants during the period 

from fiscal year 2005 to 2009, an increase of about 136 percent compared to the $32.5 million

authorized under TEA-21.

• Under SAFETEA-LU, the UTC grants provide funding to establish and operate up to 60

UTCs, an increase of about 82 percent compared to the 33 centers authorized under TEA-21. 

Twenty of the 60 centers are scheduled for competitive selection during 2006, and 40 centers

are located at institutions named in the legislation. 

• To foster a closer connection between UTC research and needs of the operating administrations

and DOT, RITA hosted a two-day workshop in April 2006 where officials from operating 

administrations made presentations on their RD&T activities and DOT’s priorities to UTC

members. RITA officials noted that this is the first of a planned series of program meetings, 

technical workshops, and other outreach efforts to increase UTC connections to DOT’s RD&T

priorities and programs. RITA is also working with the operating administrations to increase

technical oversight of the individual UTCs’ selection and evaluation processes for research.

9 The UTC program was initiated in 1987 under the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, which authorized the

establishment and operation of transportation centers in each of the ten federal regions. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of

1991 (ISTEA) reauthorized the UTC program for an additional six years and added four national centers and six University Research Institutes.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 35 GAO-06-917

20

Effects of RITA’s coordination,

facilitation, and review activities 

• RITA has not established performance goals for its coordination, facilitation, and review activities, nor

does RITA monitor or evaluate the effects of those activities. Also, RITA has not worked with the 

operating administrations to develop common performance measures for the Department’s RD&T 

activities. 

• Setting meaningful goals for performance, and using performance information to measure

performance against those goals, is required by the Government Performance and Results Act of

1993.

10 GAO has also reported on key practices—such as defining common outcomes and 

developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results—that can enhance and 

sustain collaboration among organizations that conduct cross-cutting activities.

11

• Establishing performance goals and an evaluation plan for its own coordination, facilitation, and

review activities could assist RITA in identifying any problem areas and better allocating its 

resources to improve performance. Without such goals and an evaluation plan, it is difficult for

RITA to determine its success in overseeing and ensuring the effectiveness of DOT’s RD&T

activities. Also, without common performance measures for the RD&T activities of the operating 

administrations, RITA and the operating administrations lack the means to monitor and evaluate 

the collective results of those activities and ensure that they are achieving their intended (or other)

results and furthering the Secretary’s and DOT-wide priorities.

• The RITA Administrator told us that he was open to developing performance goals and an evaluation 

plan for RITA’s coordination, facilitation, and review activities and to working with the operating

administrations to develop common performance measures for DOT’s RD&T activities.

10 Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). Under GPRA, federal agencies are required to develop strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports that set long-term and annual goals along with the means for accomplishing the goals and report on achieving them.

11 GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: October 21, 2005).

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 36 GAO-06-917

21

Effects of RITA’s coordination,

facilitation, and review activities, continued

• Although RITA lacks performance goals and measures, officials from the three operating 

administrations we interviewed and from RITA noted some positive effects of RITA’s efforts:

• Officials from all three operating administrations told us that RITA’s Program Review Working 

Group meetings provide them with opportunities to share best practices relating to program 

management issues, such as how to apply the OMB R&D Investment Criteria to RD&T activities. 

An official from one of the operating administrations said that RITA has been helpful in trying to

strengthen the connection between the UTCs and the DOT’s RD&T priorities through programs 

such as the 2-day UTC workshop hosted in April 2006. Officials from another operating 

administration told us that RITA has helped them to better align their RD&T activities with DOT’s 

and the Secretary’s priorities by focusing on how their research activities will support DOT’s RD&T

Strategic Plan.

• Officials from RITA’s Office of RD&T believe that RITA’s budget guidance and review process is 

helping to ensure that the operating administrations have a more consistent approach to show

how their RD&T activities support DOT’s strategic objectives, Secretarial priorities, and crossmodal initiatives. One official noted that, over time, this process should give RITA the ability to

critically review and make recommendations to OST on how RD&T activities could better support

DOT’s strategic objectives, Secretarial priorities, and cross-modal initiatives. Also, the Program

Review Working Group has identified an opportunity for FHWA and FAA to coordinate pavement

research.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 37 GAO-06-917

22

Follow-up to GAO 

Recommendations

• In 2003, GAO made five recommendations to DOT and RSPA to 

improve the coordination and evaluation of RD&T activities.

• The recommendations generally remain relevant for RITA. 

• RITA has partially implemented four recommendations and has not 

implemented one recommendation. RITA has made progress, but much

remains to be done for RITA to fully implement the recommendations.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 38 GAO-06-917

23

Follow-up to GAO 

Recommendations, continued

• RITA has not developed a strategy to review all DOT research projects to

identify areas of unnecessary research duplication overlap and 

opportunities for joint efforts, although they have taken some action, as

discussed below. RITA officials told us that they expect to identify such

areas through the coordination and review activities of the RD&T Planning 

Council, RD&T Planning Team, and the Program Review Working Group. 

However, although the DOT Order that created the RD&T Planning

Council, Planning Team, and indirectly the Program Review Working 

Group, lays out as part of its purpose the responsibility to prevent

unnecessary duplication of RD&T efforts in DOT, none of these groups has 

developed a strategy that describes (1) the scope of the RD&T projects or

programs that will be reviewed for duplication or joint efforts, (2) the

methodology for how all research projects will be reviewed or how

duplication or joint efforts will be identified, (3) a time line and frequency for

the review to occur, and (4) how the results of the review—the identification

of duplication or an opportunity for joint effort—will be used to make

decisions about future RD&T activities.

• A RITA official told us that the research tracking system database was 

dropped from DOT’s priorities after the creation of RITA; however, RITA’s

proposed Transportation Futures and Applied Technology Program

includes the development of a Web-based database for DOT’s RD&T 

programs. RITA has not yet established a catalog of all the research 

activities within DOT. Without such a catalog, DOT officials do not have

readily accessible data on research activities throughout DOT. 

Develop a strategy for 

reviewing all DOT research

projects to identify areas of

unnecessary research 

duplication overlap, and 

opportunities for joint

efforts.

• Include time frames for 

implementing this

review and discuss the 

development and 

implementation of a 

DOT-wide research 

tracking system

database.

• Incorporate the results 

of this effort into DOT’s 

annual research plan

and report to Congress 

on an annual basis.

Recommendation 1 Status: Partially Implemented

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 39 GAO-06-917

24

Follow-up to GAO 

Recommendations, continued

• While the results of RITA’s coordination and review activities are discussed 

during Planning Team meetings, the results are not reported to Congress

because RITA is no longer required to submit an annual RD&T plan to 

Congress. RITA officials told us that they plan to report these results

annually in the DOT Performance Plans and Reports required by

SAFETEA-LU. This reporting is expected to begin in Fiscal Year 2008, as

the first reporting against the new RD&T Strategic Plan.

• Without such a strategy—supported by a comprehensive database of

ongoing RD&T projects—RITA is unable to ensure that areas of 

unnecessary research duplication, overlap, and opportunities for joint

efforts are systematically identified and managed.

Develop a strategy for 

reviewing all DOT research

projects to identify areas of

unnecessary research 

duplication overlap, and 

opportunities for joint

efforts.

• Include time frames for 

implementing this

review and discuss the 

development and 

implementation of a 

DOT-wide research 

tracking system

database.

• Incorporate the results 

of this effort into DOT’s 

annual research plan

and report to Congress 

on an annual basis.

Recommendation 1 Status: Partially Implemented

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 40 GAO-06-917

25

Follow-up to GAO 

Recommendations, continued

• DOT and RSPA did not concur with this recommendation in 2003, citing their 

views that: (1) the most useful and effective performance measures focus on

results, while coordination is a process; (2) there are no performance measures

capable of quantifying effective coordination; and (3) existing coordination

processes have been effective in preventing unnecessary research duplication.

• RITA officials also told us that they did not develop performance measures to

assess the effectiveness of research coordination effort because they do not 

believe that a metric approach is well suited for assessing the effects of the 

coordination process.

• While RITA officials told us that they have not developed or applied 

performance measures for coordination, they indicated their willingness to

develop--in concert with the operating administrations—common performance 

measures for DOT’s RD&T activities.

Develop and apply

quantifiable

performance measures

to assess the 

effectiveness of

research coordination

efforts and document 

the results of these

efforts in DOT’s annual

research plan. 

Recommendation 2 Status: Not Implemented

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 41 GAO-06-917

26

Follow-up to GAO 

Recommendations, continued

• RITA officials have not developed a strategy to ensure that the results of all DOT’s RD&T

activities are evaluated according to established best practices, although they have taken 

some action. 

• RITA officials have told us that they ensure the evaluation of RD&T activities by reviewing

the operating administrations’ application of OMB’s R&D Investment Criteria—relevance, 

quality, and performance—through its budget review process. According to RITA officials 

and OMB documents, the R&D Investment Criteria are rooted in best practices and include 

peer review as a mechanism for assessing program quality. 

• GAO has recognized peer review as a best practice for evaluating RD&T activities.12

However, under RITA’s review of the application of the R&D Investment Criteria--which

includes information about whether peer reviews occurred--RITA officials do not verify that

peer review activities actually took place within the operating administrations.

• RITA has not developed a strategy that describes (1) which RD&T activities of the 

operating administrations RITA will ensure were evaluated according to best practices, (2) 

the methodology for how RITA will ensure evaluation of RD&T activities took place 

according to established best practices, (3) a time line for when the RD&T evaluations

should occur, and (4) how the results of the RD&T evaluations will inform future research.

Since RITA has not developed this strategy, it has not estimated costs for ensuring that

evaluations are completed nor were the results of these evaluations reported in RITA’s

annual research plan, which it is no longer required to publish.

• Without such a strategy, RITA is unable to ensure the quality and effectiveness of the 

RD&T activities and investments and determine whether they are achieving their intended

(or other) goals.

Develop a strategy to

ensure that the results of 

all DOT’s transportation 

research activities are 

evaluated according to 

established best practices.

• Include estimates of 

the costs for 

ensuring that

evaluations are

completed. 

• Incorporate the

results of these 

efforts in DOT’s

annual research plan 

and report to

Congress on an

annual basis.

Recommendation 3 Status: Partially Implemented

12 GAO, Highway Research: Systematic Selection and Evaluation Processes Needed for Research Program, GAO-02-573

(Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2002). Peer review includes an independent assessment of technical and scientific merit or quality and is

considered appropriate for all RD&T programs. 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 42 GAO-06-917

27

Follow-up to GAO 

Recommendations, continued

• RSPA, for one year, published a summary of all research program evaluations

conducted, in that it published the results of its review of the operating

administrations’ application of OMB’s R&D Investment Criteria in its fiscal year

2005 annual RD&T plan. A schedule of future evaluations was not included in

this plan. 

• Since RSPA was dissolved, RITA has not continued to publish the results of

its reviews of the operating administrations’ application of OMB’s R&D

Investment Criteria because SAFETEA-LU no longer requires RITA to submit

an annual research plan.

• Publishing a current inventory of the evaluation of research activities and a

schedule for future evaluations on a regular basis could provide continuity and 

context for the observations about research results and planned research for 

future years.

Include in DOT’s 

annual research plan a 

summary of all 

research program

evaluations conducted

and a schedule of 

future evaluations.

Recommendation 4 Status: Partially Implemented

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 43 GAO-06-917

28

Follow-up to GAO 

Recommendations, continued

• RITA has not documented its process for systematically evaluating the results 

of its own multi-modal research programs, or how this process would apply to

any future multi-modal research programs that it conducts, although RITA has 

taken some action, described below.

• RITA manages multi-modal RD&T activities, such as the Hydrogen Safety 

Program and various grant programs in SAFETEA-LU delegated to it by DOT.

According to a RITA official, RITA oversees contracts and evaluates the 

results of RD&T activities that are conducted under these contracts through

the peer review process. RITA has not documented its process for conducting 

these peer reviews and it is unclear whether the peer review process will be

applied to future multi-modal RD&T activities. 

• Without systematically evaluating program results, RITA is limited in its ability 

to determine the extent to which its multi-modal RD&T programs are achieving 

their intended (or other) goals. 

Document RSPA’s 

process for 

systematically

evaluating the results of

its own multi-modal

research programs, and 

apply this process to

any future multimodal

research programs that

RSPA conducts.

Recommendation 5 Status: Partially Implemented

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 44 GAO-06-917

29

Objective 3: BTS’ process for 

identifying its users is not systematic

• BTS does not have a systematic process, but uses a variety of methods, for identifying specific users of

BTS information. 

• BTS officials told us they primarily rely on a Congressional definition of broad categories of data users,

contained in SAFETEA-LU. This definition states that users of BTS information include the Federal

government, State and local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, transportation-related

associations, the private sector (including the freight community), and the public.

• BTS officials told us that they identify specific users through a variety of methods such as:

• Conferences, focus groups, and training sessions;

• Meetings of professional associations;

• Direct inquiries via the BTS Web site, in the form of email, letters, and telephone; and

• News media citations--tracked by RITA’s Office of Governmental, International and Public Affairs--

that mention BTS data.

• BTS does not track specific users nor does it have information on the overall number of users of its data

products. According to one BTS official, the reason for this is because it is very difficult to track 

individual users, other than through Web site hits and tracking the number of publications ordered.

Also, the official mentioned BTS is limited in its ability to collect information on individual data users due

to privacy concerns. 

• Without a systematic process for identifying primary users for each of its programs, BTS cannot solicit

feedback from these users on an ongoing basis. 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 45 GAO-06-917

30

Examples of BTS data users

• Examples of users of BTS information

Source: GAO analysis of BTS information.

• States use National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) data for transit planning; Metropolitan

Planning Organizations (MPO) use NHTS data for highway planning.

Planners

• BTS is developing capital stock values (a commonly used economic measure of the capacity of

the transportation system) for airports, waterways, and transit systems for use by policymakers to

better estimate the amount of investment needed to accommodate current or future levels of traffic 

on those modes.

Policymakers

• BTS worked with the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis to develop a 

Transportation Satellite Account, which enhanced the measurement of transportation’s 

contribution to the Gross Domestic Product.

• The Department of Homeland Security‘s Transportation Security Administration used BTS’

Omnibus Survey Program data on the amount of baggage brought to airports.

Other Federal 

agencies

• DOT’s Office of the Secretary uses BTS airline data to determine eligibility for the Essential Air 

Service (EAS) program, monitor the impact of airline service on the traveling public, negotiate 

international air service agreements, and provide oversight of the airline industry.

• The Federal Highway Administration uses Commodity Flow Survey data in its Freight Analysis

Framework, a departmental planning tool.

• DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) uses data collected by BTS for the Confidential

Close Call Reporting System Demonstration Project to help FRA and railroad carriers identify 

safety issues that require corrective action.

Department of 

Transportation

BTS Data Users Data product used and for what purpose

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 46 GAO-06-917

31

BTS’ methods for soliciting feedback

on user satisfaction is not systematic

• BTS’ process for soliciting feedback on user satisfaction is not systematic, but BTS officials reported

using a variety of methods for soliciting feedback from its users, including:

• Data users’ meetings and workshops held at conferences or training sessions, and focus groups

conducted with BTS data users;

• BTS’ Reference Services, which tracks and responds to user feedback; and

• Independent third party reviews of its programs.

• In the past, BTS systematically solicited feedback on overall customer satisfaction of BTS’ products and

services through its Customer Satisfaction Survey. BTS conducted the last such survey in 1998. 

• Also, in the past, BTS solicited feedback via comment cards, inserted in data products. According to

BTS officials, the survey and comment cards are no longer used as methods for soliciting feedback as a 

result of restrictions stemming from the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). BTS officials 

told us they are working with RITA’s Chief Counsel’s office to reinstitute the use of comment cards.

• Without a systematic process for soliciting feedback on user satisfaction from its users, BTS cannot 

ensure that it is has a full picture of the needs of those users and how well it is meeting those needs, 

which, in turn, hinders BTS’ ability to make improvements to data programs that are relevant to users.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 47 GAO-06-917

32

Examples of how BTS has

solicited feedback from users

• Examples of how BTS has solicited feedback from users.

Source: GAO analysis of BTS information.

• In 2003, BTS asked the Transportation Research Board and Committee on National

Statistics of the National Academies to conduct a review of its major survey programs, 

including the (1) National Household Travel Survey, (2) Omnibus Survey Program, 

and (3) Commodity Flow Survey.

• In 1999, BTS contracted with an external group to conduct focus groups with

congressional staffers, DOT employees, transportation statistics experts, and

employees of non-profits or associations in the transportation field to (1) gain feedback

on BTS’ publications and services and (2) gather insight about how to improve these 

tools for the end user.

Independent third party reviews

• BTS’ National Transportation Library Reference Services Desk tracks and responds to

inquiries received by email via BTS’ Web site or by telephone.

BTS Reference Services

• In 2005, BTS engaged freight data users at a Commodity Flow Survey Conference for 

input on changes needed in BTS’ freight data collection.

• In 2004, BTS engaged users of travel data for their input into current uses of existing

data and future data needs. The results of this data user’s meeting were published in

Data for Understanding Our Nation’s Travel: National Household Travel Survey

Conference.

Data users’ meetings and 

workshops held at conferences 

or training sessions

Examples of how feedback on user solicitation was solicited for specific BTS

programs

How BTS solicited user

feedback on user satisfaction

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 48 GAO-06-917

33

• BTS relies on its program managers, who are responsible for managing a data collection 

program and its associated data products, to determine how best to address feedback

from users in identifying areas of improvement and taking steps to address product

weaknesses. 

• According to BTS officials, program managers use their professional judgment and 

consider such factors as time and resource constraints when deciding whether to

incorporate feedback from users in taking steps to improve their data products. BTS

officials told us that program managers are not required—and often do not—report the

results of how feedback on user satisfaction was considered and whether improvements to

the data product were made.

• GAO’s Internal Control standards suggest that on-going monitoring should take place to

ensure that users are satisfied and that policies and procedures should be in place to

ensure that feedback is evaluated so that improvements can be made.

• Without policies and procedures in place for incorporating feedback on user satisfaction, 

BTS cannot systematically consider feedback and use it to make improvements to data

products.

BTS’ method for incorporating 

feedback on user satisfaction is not systematic

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 49 GAO-06-917

34

BTS’ performance measures

• BTS reports that it measures the overall degree to which products and services are useful

and responsive to the needs of users by tracking two performance indicators—the number 

of congressional and governmental agency contacts regarding BTS information and the 

average number of daily unique visitors to the TranStats data Web site:

13

• BTS reports that the number of congressional and governmental agency contacts has

increased each year, from 84 requests in 2002, to 287 in 2005. BTS officials attribute

this increase to their responsiveness to inquiries and they told us that the increase

indicates that BTS is providing Congress and agencies with information that they

need, and that they find BTS to be a reliable source.

• BTS reports the average number of daily unique visits to the TranStats data site has 

increased from 565 in 2003, to 813 in 2005. According to BTS officials, this indicates

that the information is useful and that awareness among current and potential new 

BTS data users is increasing.

• We note, however, that these indicators are simple counts and not measures of user 

satisfaction with BTS information.

13 Required by SAFETEA-LU, the TranStats data web site contains hundreds of transportation-related databases and is made available to the

public via BTS’ Web site.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 50 GAO-06-917

35

DOT’s Perspective on Key 

Issues Related to RITA

• We met with senior DOT officials—including the Department’s Chief of Staff, the

Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and Chief Financial Officer, the 

RITA Administrator, and other officials—to discuss the factual information 

presented in these slides. These officials agreed with the information, providing

clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.

• These officials said that their vision is for RITA to play a key role—in concert 

with the operating administrations—in shaping the future of DOT’s RD&T

activities, although they believe that RITA will need significant additional

resources, especially technical experts, to achieve this vision. They said that

OST will rely heavily on input from RITA’s Planning Council in making its 

decisions related to the RD&T budget requests from the operating

administrations. They also said that OST will look to RITA to play a lead role in

helping realign the Department’s RD&T activities to focus more closely on key 

cross-modal transportation issues facing the nation, including congestion, 

alternative fuels, freight capacity, and other issues.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix I: Review of DOT’s Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

Page 51 GAO-06-917

36

Next Steps

• Prepare final slides, with a short summary of results, for publication as a 

GAO report.

• Determine if committee staff want any additional work on RITA.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Appendix II: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 52 GAO-06-917

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Mathew Scire, (202) 512-2834 or sciremj@gao.gov 

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report 

were Rita Grieco, Assistant Director; Ashley Alley; Carl Barden; Christine 

Bonham; Elizabeth Curda; Michelle Dresben; Colin Fallon; Richard Hung; 

Sara Ann Moessbauer; Susan Ragland; April Thompson; Deborah Winters; 

and Dorothy Yee. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(542079) Research and Innovative Technology Administration
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, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER