U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66–923PDF 2011

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PRIORITIES: 

MAXIMIZING RETURN ON INVESTMENT OF 

TAXPAYER DOLLARS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 

Serial No. 112–23 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

HON. BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona, Chair 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Hearing Date 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Benjamin Quayle, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Statement by Representative David Wu, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Peter Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Mr. John Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation; Chair, 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Standing Committee on Research 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Mr. David Gehr, Senior Vice President, Highway Market, Parsons 

Brinckerhoff; Chairman, American Society of Civil Engineers Transportation Policy Committee 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31 

Dr. Irwin Feller, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Pennsylvania State University; Senior Visiting Fellow, American Association for the Advancement 

of Science 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 34 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36 

Ms. Lynn Peterson, Transportation Policy Advisor, Office of Governor John 

Kitzhaber (OR) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 42 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 44 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Peter Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ............................ 66 

Mr. John Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation; Chair, 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Standing Committee on Research ................................................................................. 72 

Mr. David Gehr, Senior Vice President, Highway Market, Parsons 

Brinckerhoff; Chairman, American Society of Civil Engineers Transportation Policy Committee ...................................................................................... 74 
Page

IV 

Dr. Irwin Feller, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Pennsylvania State University; Senior Visiting Fellow, American Association for the Advancement 

of Science .............................................................................................................. 75 

Ms. Lynn Peterson, Transportation Policy Advisor, Office of Governor John 

Kitzhaber (OR) ..................................................................................................... 76 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Material Submitted by Representative Randy Neugebauer, Subcommittee on 

Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 80 
(1) 

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PRIORITIES: 

MAXIMIZING RETURN ON INVESTMENT OF 

TAXPAYER DOLLARS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin Quayle 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Transportation Research Priorities: 

Maximizing Return on Investment of 

Taxpayer Dollars 

TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011

10:00 A.M.—12:00 P.M. 

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

I. Purpose 

On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation will 

convene a hearing to review the research, development, and technology (RD&T) activities of the Department of Transportation. The hearing will focus on issues related to the funding and prioritization of current research initiatives and how to 

maximize the efficiency of these activities. With the expiration of SAFETEA–LU in 

fiscal year 2009, this hearing will also examine research issues to inform the current Federal surface transportation reauthorization effort. 

II. Witnesses 

• The Honorable Peter Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation 

• Mr. John Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation; Chair, 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Standing 

Committee on Research 

• Mr. David Gehr, Senior Vice President, Highway Market, Parsons 

Brinckerhoff; Chairman, American Society of Civil Engineers Transportation 

Policy Committee 

• Dr. Irwin Feller, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Pennsylvania State University; Senior Visiting Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of 

Science 

• Ms. Lynn Peterson, Transportation Policy Advisor, Office of Governor John 

Kitzhaber (OR) 

III. Brief Overview 

The Department of Transportation (DOT) annually supports more than $600 million in research, development, and technology deployment (RD&T) activities focused 

on surface modes of transportation (rail, transit, motor carrier and highway). DOT 

characterizes research funding into three main categories: applied, development, 

and technology. The first two categories are pre-implementation stage work, while 

the technology, or ‘‘T’’ classification, implies that funds are being used for technology 

deployment or field demonstration. 

Secretary Ray LaHood’s DOT priorities are organized around five strategic goals: 

safety, state of good repair, economic competitiveness, livable communities, and environmental sustainability. Several plans have provided strategic direction for the 

Department. DOT’s most recent strategic plan, ‘‘New Ideas for a Nation on the 

Move’’ provided goals for fiscal years 2006–2011. In 2006, the Research and Innovative Technologies Administration (RITA), the research coordination body of DOT, 

produced ‘‘The Transportation, Research, Development, and Technology Strategic 

Plan for 2006 to 2010.’’ The plan, mandated by the surface highway reauthorization 

bill passed in 2005 (PL–109–59, ‘‘SAFETEA–LU’’), established a five-year pathway 

for DOT research activities. The Transportation Research Board, a part of the National Research Council, reviewed the plan and identified a number of strengths and 

weaknesses. One area of concern was that the plan did not ‘‘explain how the varied 

missions of DOT and its operating agencies influence the RD&T portfolio.’’ DOT 

does not have a current strategic plan for the Department or specific to RD&T activities, and current research priorities are not easily quantified or characterized. 
4 

A draft strategic plan was made available for public comment in May 2010, but has 

not been finalized. 

In November 2008, the Transportation Research Board produced a report titled, 

‘‘The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009: Strengths and Weaknesses.’’ The Board made a number of recommendations for change to highway research programs, including improved engagement of the research community in the 

priority-setting process and subjecting research programs to merit-review. 

The hearing will explore whether the research activities of DOT are well-executed 

and integrated across the Department, and how to efficiently address the long-term 

research and technology needs of the country. In particular, the relationship between states and the Federal government will be explored. The pending surface 

transportation reauthorization presents an opportunity to ensure transportation 

RD&T activities are aligned with national transportation priorities and to examine 

how the priorities will further the states’ ability to incorporate transformational research results into their transportation systems. 

IV. Background 

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

Users (SAFETEA–LU), which became law in August 2005, was the last comprehensive Federal surface transportation reauthorization bill. Since that authorization expired in fiscal year 2009, a series of extensions have been enacted to continue funding for programs. The most recent extension, the Surface Transportation Extension 

Act of 2011 (Public Law 112–5) extended surface transportation programs through 

September 30, 2011. 

The DOT surface RD&T endeavor is conducted by a host of multi-modal Administrations. Those Administrations include the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and 

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). In addition, the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) conducts a small amount 

of internal research and primarily facilitates and supports coordination of research 

efforts across the DOT. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

(RD&T) ACTIVITIES* 

RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION (RITA) 

RITA is responsible for planning, coordination, facilitation, and review of DOT’s 

research programs. The request includes $17.6 million for RITA to conduct a small 

amount of internal research and to coordinate research programs across the agencies. RITA oversees the following programs, which are funded out of other Administration’s accounts: 
5 

Research Area 

(and source of funding) FY 2012 Request 

(millions) 

Intelligent Transportation Systems (FHWA) $110.0 

Univ. Transportation Center (UTC) Program 

(FHWA, FTA) 

$100.0 

Competitive UTC Consortia (FHWA, FTA) $80.0 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (FHWA) $35.0 

UTC Multimodal Competitive Research Grants 

(FHWA) 

$20.0 

Multimodal Innovative Research Program (FHWA) $20.0 

Transportation Safety Institute (fee for service) -- 

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

(fee for service) 

-- 
6 

Research Area 

(and source of funding) FY 2012 Request 

(millions) 

Structures (improving and maintaining 

infrastructure) 

$75.0 

Planning, Environment, and Realty 

(environmental research, project delivery 

improvement initiatives, asset management) 

$35.0 

Highway Operations (research to improve 

movement of people and goods) 

$25.0 

Safety $25.0 

Next Generation Research & Technology $22.0 

Policy (analysis on emerging domestic and 

international issues) 

$18.0 

FHWA also funds the Future Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP II), administered by the Transportation Research Board, which is a multi-year research 

effort focused on moving transportation research to deployment in the field in order 

to reduce congestion, improve highway safety, and rehabilitate aging infrastructure. 

While no funds were requested to continue the program in FY 2012, the last enacted 

funding was $50 million in FY 10. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) 

FTA’s FY 12 National Research & Technology Deployment request is $129.2 million. When funding for implementation and deployment is removed, the total 

amount focused on research and development is about $40 million. FTA’s requested 

research and development activities in FY 12 include: Innovative safety research, 

industry analysis research, rail programs and infrastructure research, transit standards development, and transit planning and forecasting research under the National 

Program ($14.5M); transit-focused University Transportation Centers Program 

($8.0M); Clean Fuels and Environmental Research ($14.8M); Greenhouse Gas and 

Energy Reduction Deployment and Demonstration Programs. $10 million would be 

provided for two transit agencies to serve as ‘‘test beds,’’ and $65 million for demonstration activities ($75.0M). 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) 

NHTSA’s FY 12 request for Research and Analysis is $78.2 million which includes: Crashworthiness Research ($21.4M), Crash Avoidance Research ($12.7M), 

and Alternative Fuels Vehicle Safety ($1.5M). Additionally, $13 million is requested 

for Highway Safety Research. 
7 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA) 

The FRA Core R&D request of $40 million includes funding for: railroad systems, 

human factors, track and train interaction, HAZMAT travel, and the National Cooperative Rail Research Program, among other areas. Additionally, $50 million is requested for High-Speed Rail R&D. These funds are to address safety risks and fund 

new technology. 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (FMCSA) 

The FMCSA RD&T program request for FY 2012 is $11.6 million. The request includes the following research and development activities: Produce Safer Drivers 

($2.4M), Improve Safety of Commercial Vehicles ($200,000), Produce Safer Carriers 

($1.1M), and Enable and Motivate Internal Excellence ($700,000). 

V. Major Issues and Concerns 

DOT PRIORITIZATION OF RESEARCH AND PERFORMANCE METRICS

The current amount DOT spends on research to support surface programs is approximately one percent of federal expenditures on highways. Questions remain as 

to whether this is a sufficient amount, and whether the long-term research needs 

of the nation are being adequately addressed. In addition, the current strategic priorities for the DOT, which impact all programs, may not be well-aligned with the 

needs of stakeholders. Components such as livable communities, environmental sustainability, and economic competitiveness remain ill-defined, amorphous, and difficult to measure, especially as they relate to research programs. There are no Federal performance standards to guide states or standardized reporting metrics. Without a means for states to prove the effectiveness of their programs, and without the 

DOT requiring such justification coupled with clear strategic goals, it is challenging 

to ensure that federal funds are being used as efficiently and effectively as possible. 

COMPETITIVE FUNDING AND UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTERS

The practice of earmarking funding in the surface transportation bill has expanded in recent reauthorization measures. The 2005 SAFETEA–LU legislation contained over 5,600 earmarks accounting for $21.7 billion in the highway title alone. 

Some transportation groups have opposed the practice of earmarking, arguing it 

constrains DOT’s ability to invest strategically in RD&T. In fact, SAFETEA–LU’s 

research title earmarked more funding than was authorized by the title, so several 

research programs and projects were unable to be funded until a technical corrections Act was passed in 2008 to fix the research funding shortfall. 

SAFETEA–LU provided about $70 million annually to support University Transportation Centers (UTCs) across the country. The act authorized an expansion in 

the number of UTCs from 33 to 60 UTCs, 20 of which were competitively selected. 

All UTCs require a portion of state matching funds, conduct basic and applied university-based transportation research, and are managed by RITA. Secretary LaHood 

recently made the decision, based on authority provided to DOT under the last extension bill (P.L. 112–5), to cease funding for all of the existing 59 UTCs and reform 

the program into a competitive, consortium-based system. Several other research 

programs funded through RITA, FTA, and FHWA also will not receive funding in 

FY 11 as a result of the Secretary’s decision. For FY 2011, UTC applicants will be 

required to apply in consortia of at least two institutions of higher education. The 

UTC program has been cited as valuable to transportation research, as well as underutilized by DOT and overly focused on highly applied research instead of advanced research to support national transportation needs. 

HIGHWAY TRUST FUND SOLVENCY

The current highway research programs have been funded through a series of extensions, which have transferred sums from the general fund. Driving has declined 

significantly in the last decade and vehicles have become more fuel efficient. Consequently, at the current rate of 18.4 cents per gallon, set in 1993, the Highway 

Trust Fund is no longer covering all of the surface transportation expenses. To remain solvent, the highway account has already required three transfers from the 

general fund totaling $29.7 billion. The most recent transfer of $14.7 billion in 2010 

is expected to keep the account solvent through sometime in 2013. A means of adding more funds to the trust fund must be found, or the size of programs supported 

by DOT must decrease. In the current budget environment it is unclear whether the 
8 

most viable path forward is to restore the solvency of the fund or to address financing needs in other ways. 

Chairman QUAYLE. The Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation will come to order. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled, ‘‘Transportation Research Priorities: Maximizing Return on Investment of Taxpayer Dollars.’’ In front of you 

are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and 

truth in testimony disclosures for today’s witness panel. 

I will now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

The research and development activities at the Department of 

Transportation are vital to the Nation’s prosperity. These efforts 

support critical infrastructure and enhance both our economic competitiveness and our way of life. The pathway forward for these 

programs continues to present significant challenges for Congress. 

We need to ask difficult questions to determine how best to address 

the issues facing our aging infrastructure within the limitations of 

our current budget environment. 

The DOT annually supports more than $600 million in research, 

development, and technology deployment activities focused on surface modes of transportation. These programs were last authorized 

in 2005, and are primarily supported through the Highway Trust 

Fund and Mass Transit Fund. However, since 2009, funding shortfalls have required us to transfer nearly $30 billion from the general fund to maintain all of our highway programs. 

Advancements in materials and technology can help achieve 

long-term cost savings by reducing congestion and improving the 

durability and lifespan of our transportation projects. It is, therefore, critical that we find a way to maintain a healthy, substantive 

research base behind our state and local transportation initiatives. 

Concerns have been raised about how research priorities are 

identified and the means used to quantify and measure performance. Today’s hearing provides an opportunity for us to examine if 

our research activities are well-executed and integrated across the 

Department and whether they are efficiently addressing the longterm research and technology needs of the country. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for coming here today and 

for sharing your thoughts on how to improve our transportation 

networks and research activities. I look forward to starting a dialogue with you today and hope you will continue to work with us 

to maximize the effectiveness of these programs as we attempt to 

reauthorize our federal surface transportation programs. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quayle follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

CHAIRMAN BEN QUAYLE

The research and development activities at the Department of Transportation 

(DOT) are vital to our nation’s prosperity—these efforts support critical infrastructure, and enhance both our economic competitiveness, and way of life. The pathway 

forward for these programs continues to present significant challenges for Congress. 

We need to ask difficult questions to determine how best to address the issues facing our aging infrastructure within the limitations of our current budget environment. 

The DOT annually supports more than $600 million in research, development, 

and technology deployment (RD&T) activities focused on surface modes of transportation. These programs were last authorized in 2005 and are primarily supported 
9 

through the Highway Trust Fund and Mass Transit Fund. However, since 2009, 

funding shortfalls have required us to transfer nearly $30 billion from the general 

fund to maintain all of our highway programs. 

Advancements in materials and technology can help achieve long-term cost savings by reducing congestion, and improving the durability and lifespan of our transportation projects. It is therefore critical that we find a way to maintain a healthy, 

substantive research base behind our state and local transportation initiatives. 

Concerns have been raised about how research priorities are identified and the 

means used to quantify and measure performance. Today’s hearing provides an opportunity for us to examine if our research activities are well executed and integrated across the Department, and whether they are efficiently addressing the longterm research and technology needs of the country. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for coming today and sharing your thoughts 

on how to improve our transportation networks and research activities. I look forward to starting a dialogue today, and hope you will continue to work with us to 

maximize the effectiveness of these programs as we attempt to reauthorize our federal surface transportation programs. 

Chairman QUAYLE. I would now like to recognize the Ranking 

Member of this Subcommittee, Mr. Wu, for an opening statement. 

Mr. WU. Thank you, Chairman Quayle, for calling this hearing. 

I also want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee and for their assistance today in helping us assess what 

research and development needs should be addressed in any surface transportation reauthorization bill considered by this Congress. 

Since the last reauthorization the Subcommittee has examined a 

number of research and development challenges faced by DOT. For 

example, in 2009, we looked at ways to improve the planning and 

coordination of DOT’s research agenda, strengthen technology 

transfer, and ensure that federally-funded research and development is meeting State and local transportation needs and mitigating the impact of the surface transportation system on the environment. It is important that we have some of these discussions 

again today because the transportation sector has an enormous impact on our lives and the economy. 

The average household in America spends 16 percent of its budget on transportation. In all, transportation-related goods and services contribute about $1.2 trillion to the U.S. economy. 

If we are committed to making our transportation system more 

reliable and more efficient and ensuring that transportation planners are wisely investing taxpayer dollars, we need to have a robust and effective transportation and research program. 

Therefore, I am pleased that this Subcommittee continues to take 

seriously its critical role in guiding DOT’s research and development priorities while seeking input on the specific investments 

needed to see those priorities through to fruition. 

I also believe that we need to be talking more seriously about improving the energy efficiency of our entire transportation system. 

We should be asking questions like what modeling tools would help 

communities develop an effective, mixed-use transportation system 

of cars, buses, bicycles, light rail, and trolleys such as we have in 

Portland, Oregon. If we are serious about congestion mitigation 

and traffic management, what are the next steps towards realizing 

those goals and reducing the amount of time cars spend idling in 

traffic. 

Sustainability and energy efficiency are no longer just buzz 

words in transportation, in the transportation community. They are 
10 

crucial components of a working national transportation infrastructure. Building more roads is not the only answer. We must use our 

resources carefully and plan strategically, and that requires a commitment to finding simple and innovative ways to increase the productivity and longevity of our transportation systems. 

I am proud that my congressional district has been at the forefront of this endeavor, implementing and operating a transportation infrastructure that serves as a national model of integrated 

energy efficiency and sustainability. The State and local departments of transportation in Oregon have worked effectively to implement truly innovative solutions to our transportation challenges 

using a diverse set of technologies including a transit signal priority project that greatly reduces idling for buses by linking onboard computers to traffic lights, sensory ramp meters that cut 

congestions on our freeways, and real time digital dissemination of 

traffic information to travelers so that they can avoid backups. 

These efforts are coordinated regionally, not just city by city, so 

that the energy savings benefit taxpayers throughout the area. 

Ms. Lynn Peterson, who is the Sustainable Communities and 

Transportation Policy Advisor to the governor of the State of Oregon, is here to tell us more about how the research and policy 

communities collaborate to make these projects a reality. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will play an important 

role in defining our transportation research priorities for the future. I am confident that today’s witnesses will give us some solid 

ideas for moving transportation research forward, and I look forward to their testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DAVID WU

Thank you, Chairman Quayle, for calling this hearing. I also want to thank our 

witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee and for their assistance today in 

helping us assess what research and development needs should be addressed in any 

surface transportation reauthorization bill considered by Congress. 

Since the last reauthorization, this Subcommittee has examined a number of research and development challenges faced by the Department of Transportation. 

For example, in 2009, we looked at ways to: 

• improve the planning and coordination of DOT’s research agenda; 

• strengthen technology transfer and ensure that federally funded research and 

development is meeting state and local transportation needs; 

• and mitigate the impact of the surface transportation system on the environment. 

It’s important that we have some of these discussions again today, because the 

transportation sector has an enormous impact on our lives and the economy. In fact, 

the average household spends 16 percent of its budget on transportation. In all, 

transportation-related goods and services contribute about $1.2 trillion to the U.S. 

economy. 

If we are committed to making our transportation system more reliable and more 

efficient, and ensuring that transportation planners are wisely investing taxpayer 

dollars, we need to have a robust and effective transportation research program. 

Therefore, I am pleased that this Subcommittee continues to take seriously its critical role in guiding DOT’s research and development priorities, while seeking input 

on the specific investments needed to see those priorities through to fruition. 

I also believe that we need to be talking more seriously about improving the energy efficiency of our entire transportation system. We should be asking questions 

like: 
11 

• What modeling tools would help communities develop an effective mixed-use 

transportation system of cars, buses, bikes, light rail, and trolleys like we have 

in Portland, Oregon? 

• If we are serious about congestion mitigation and traffic management, what are 

the next steps toward realizing those goals and reducing the amount of time 

cars spend idling in traffic? 

Sustainability and energy efficiency are no longer just buzzwords in the transportation community. They are crucial components of a working national transportation 

infrastructure. Building more roads is not the only answer. We must use our resources carefully and plan strategically—and that requires a commitment to finding 

simple and innovative ways to increase the productivity and longevity of our transportation systems. 

I’m proud that the 1st District of Oregon has been at the forefront of this endeavor, implementing and operating a transportation infrastructure that serves national 

model of integrated energy efficiency and sustainability. 

The state and local departments of transportation in Oregon have worked effectively to implement truly innovative solutions to our transportation challenges using 

a diverse set of technologies including: 

• a transit signal priority project that greatly reduces idling for buses by linking 

on-board computers to traffic lights; 

• sensory ramp meters that cut congestion on our freeways; 

• and real-time digital dissemination of traffic information to travelers so they 

can avoid backups. 

These efforts are coordinated regionally, not just city by city, so that the energy 

savings benefit taxpayers throughout the area. 

Ms. Lynn Peterson, who is the Sustainable Communities and Transportation Policy Advisor to the Governor of the State of Oregon, is here to tell us more about 

how the research and policy communities collaborate to make these projects a reality. 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will play an important role in 

defining our transportation research priorities for the future. I’m confident that today’s witnesses will give us some solid ideas for moving transportation research forward and I look forward to their testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Wu. If there are Members 

who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the record at this point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witness panel. Our 

first witness is Mr. Peter Appel, Administrator of the Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration at the Department of Transportation. Next we will hear from Mr. John Halikowski from the 

great State of Arizona, where he is the Director of the Arizona Department of Transportation and Chair of the American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials Standing Committee 

on Research. 

Our third witness is David Gehr, a Senior Vice President at Parsons Brinckerhoff and Chairman of the Transportation Policy Committee at the American Society of Civil Engineers. Our next witness is Dr. Irwin Feller, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Penn 

State and the Senior Visiting Fellow for the American Association 

for the Advancement of Science. 

I now yield 2 minutes to the Ranking Member, Mr. Wu, to introduce our final witness, Ms. Peterson. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I am happy 

to introduce a fellow Oregonian, someone I have worked with in 

the past and have enjoyed working with, Ms. Lynn Peterson. 

Ms. Peterson currently serves as Governor Kitzhaber’s Sustainable Communities and Transportation Policy Advisor. She is the 

former Chair of the Clackamas County Commission and a nation-
12 

ally-recognized transportation and land use integration expert. In 

her role with the governor’s administration, Ms. Peterson leads the 

governor’s policy efforts on transportation initiatives, including 

high-speed rail, freight, highway planning and improvement, the 

solar highway, and linking transportation to housing and sustainability. 

Prior to serving on the Clackamas County Commission, Ms. Peterson worked as a Transportation Consultant and as a Strategic 

Planning Manager for TriMet. She also was a Transportation Advocate for 1,000 Friends of Oregon and a Transportation Planner for 

Metro. 

I would like to thank Ms. Peterson for coming all the way across 

the country, a trip with which I am more familiar than I want to 

be, and for dedicating her career for building safe and healthy communities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Wu. As our witnesses should 

know, your spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each, after 

which the Members of the Committee will have five minutes each 

to ask questions. 

We are going to start it off. I will now recognize our first witness, 

Mr. Peter Appel. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER H. APPEL, 

ADMINISTRATOR, RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE 

TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. APPEL. Thank you, Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member Wu, 

and Members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of Secretary Ray 

LaHood, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear 

here today to discuss the research, development, and technology 

priorities of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

It will come as no surprise to this Subcommittee that the research, development, and technology priorities of the Department 

are the same as the strategic objectives for American transportation that Secretary LaHood has set forth. Our first priority is 

safety, and our additional priorities are the state of good repair, 

economic competitiveness, livable communities, and environmental 

sustainability. 

I am privileged to lead the Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration or RITA, which guides the development of research 

and technology priorities and their coordination across the Department. At RITA we seek to implement the research and development programs in the most effective means possible, conducting research that advances national transportation goals and is 

deployable, while ensuring that the various operating administrations across the Department do not duplicate research efforts but 

rather find synergies across them. 

RITA works to identify synergies and opportunities for collaboration in support of the Department’s priorities. An example of this 

is RITA has pulled together all of the human factors experts across 

the Department to address crucial safety issues involving operator 

fatigue, no matter what mode of transportation. 
13 

Setting research priorities starts with the Research, Development, and Technology Planning Council, which I chair. The Council 

consists of my fellow heads of the Operating Administrations across 

the DOT and the Office of the Secretary. The Council sets forth 

guidance, oversees implementation, and identifies at a policy level 

the coordination that needs to occur to meet new challenges in research and technology. 

Our guidance is implemented through the RD&T Planning Team, 

which includes the Associate Administrators for research and the 

heads of research for each Operating Administration. The team discusses ongoing research activities, convenes clusters of researchers 

and program managers, facilitates research alignment with DOT 

priorities, and ensures that research we undertake has clear value 

and a path to deployment. We routinely interact with stakeholders 

to ensure that we have a coherent RD&T direction and that research has a champion willing to test, demonstrate, and deploy the 

results of our research. 

One of our closest partners is the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials represented here today by 

John Halikowski seated to my left. AASHTO routinely takes research results and incorporates them into AASHTO standards, 

guiding State and local transportation agencies in improving planning, design, operations and maintenance. 

A key tool that RITA has deployed over this past year to accelerate collaboration are 14 scientific Research Clusters. Each cluster 

has a dedicated online collaboration portal which includes shared 

research, activities, searches through the National Transportation 

Library, and links to research stored in the Transportation Research Board’s Transportation Research International Documentation and Research in Progress databases. 

RITA is the Department’s lead on cross-cutting technology transfer activities as well. RITA’s Technology Transfer Program seeks to 

move the Department’s investment in research and technology into 

application and to facilitate commercialization. RITA hosts events 

to showcase research technologies developed by Departmentallyfunded programs. Most recently on April 6 we hosted a University 

Research Technology Transfer Day at DOT Headquarters where 

about 25 universities from across the country demonstrated research they were doing that had a clear pathway to technology 

transfer and implementation and deployment. 

We have seen many DOT-funded research and technology results 

come to commercialization. Among these are several of which you 

may have heard such as the Solar Roadways Program, the unique 

concept to make roads out of recyclable solar panels. This program 

won the first GE Ecomagination Challenge and we are funding a 

phase II of this effort. 

Another example, innovative analytical methods to determine the 

best locations in the Chicago area for electric vehicle charging stations. These innovations are already being applied to other regions 

to support electric vehicle deployment. This research was conducted 

by the University Transportation Center at Northwestern University. 

The Engineered Material Arresting System that safely stops aircraft that overshoot the runway end. This is deployed at over 50 
14 

runway ends at over 35 major airports and has prevented seven 

significant accidents. Research was conducted at the FAA Hughes 

Technical Center. 

The Department is focused on working with our state and local 

partners to accelerate the deployment and acceptance of such technologies. With that I look forward to answering any questions you 

may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Appel follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETER APPEL, ADMINISTRATOR, 

RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Transportation Research Priorities: Maximizing Return on Investment of 

Taxpayer Dollars 

Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member Wu, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

On behalf of Secretary Ray LaHood, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to 

appear here today to discuss the research, development and technology priorities of 

the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

It will come as no surprise to this Subcommittee that the research, development 

and technology priorities of the Department are the same as the strategic objectives 

for American transportation that Secretary LaHood has set forth: 

• Safety—our number one priority; 

• State of Good Repair—optimal condition and performance of our infrastructure; 

• Economic Competitiveness—targeted investments to better serve the traveling 

public and facilitate freight movement, while supporting American jobs and exports; 

• Livable Communities—increasing travel choice and providing access to affordable transportation; and 

• Environmental Sustainability—addressing transportation’s impacts on air, 

water and natural ecosystems. 

As always, the Department seeks to implement our research and technology programs in the most effective means possible, conducting research that advances national transportation goals while ensuring that the various Operating Administrations of the Department do not duplicate research efforts. The organization I am 

privileged to lead, the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, or 

RITA, guides the development of research and technology priorities, and research 

coordination across the Department. 

RITA works to identify synergies and opportunities for collaboration in support 

of the Department’s priorities. For example, RITA has pulled together all of the 

human factors experts across the Department to address the crucial safety issue of 

operator fatigue, no matter the mode. 

Setting research priorities starts with the Research, Development and Technology 

(RD&T) Planning Council, which I chair. The Council consists of my fellow heads 

of the Operating Administrations and key members of the Office of the Secretary. 

The Council sets forth guidance, oversees implementation, and identifies at a policy 

level the coordination that needs to occur to meet new challenges in research and 

technology. A recent example of this guidance is the creation of the DOT Safety 

Council, to share best practices and results in safety systems. 

Our guidance is implemented through the RD&T Planning Team, which includes 

the Associate Administrators for research in each Operating Administration. The 

Team meets monthly to discuss ongoing research activities, to convene clusters of 

researchers and program managers in specific disciplines, to facilitate research 

alignment with DOT priorities, and to ensure that research we undertake has clear 

value and has a path to deployment. The Team coordinates DOT research with nonDOT-funded research being conducted in the states, at universities, in the private 

and non-profit sectors, and through the Transportation Research Board (TRB). We 

routinely interact with these and other stakeholders to ensure that research has 

champions willing to test, demonstrate, and deploy the results of our research. 

A key tool that RITA has deployed over this past year to accelerate this collaboration are fourteen scientific ‘‘Research Clusters.’’ These Clusters were identified by 

the Team as the priority topics on which DOT researchers should collaborate with 

each other and with our external stakeholders. Each Cluster has a dedicated on-line 
15 

collaboration portal which includes shared research, activities, searches through the 

National Transportation Library, and links to research stored on TRB’s Transportation Research International Documentation and Research in Progress databases. 

The fourteen Research Clusters currently include: 

• Data Driven Decision-Making, 

• Economics, 

• Energy Sustainability, 

• Human Factors, 

• Infrastructure and Materials, 

• Livability, 

• Risk-Based Analysis to Address Safety Issues, 

• Modeling and Simulation, 

• Multimodal Intelligent Transportation Systems, 

• Policy Analysis, 

• Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT), 

• System Resilience and Global Logistics, 

• Transportation Implications For an Aging Population and Those With Special 

Needs, and 

• Travel Behavior. 

RITA reaches out to other Federal agencies to address Administration research 

and technology priorities, and to make sure that our work on similar topics is complementary. For example, we serve on the interagency Biomass R&D Board, and recently hosted the Interagency Biofuels Infrastructure Workshop. We have significant 

interest in the Department of Energy’s SmartGrid work, especially as it relates to 

electric vehicle deployment. Through our involvement at the National Science and 

Technology Council, we work on Administration priorities relating to technical 

standards policy and development, nanotechnology in materials, and wireless 

broadband deployment. 

RITA is the Department’s lead on cross-cutting technology transfer activities. 

RITA’s Technology Transfer program seeks to move the Department’s investment in 

research and technology into application, and to facilitate commercialization. RITA 

hosts events to showcase research technologies developed by Departmentally-funded 

programs, most recently the April 6, 2011, University Research Technology Transfer 

Day at DOT Headquarters. 

We have seen many DOT-funded research and technology results come to commercialization—among these are several of which you may have heard: 

1. A Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) project resulted in ‘‘Solar Roadways,’’ the unique concept to make roads out of recyclable solar panels. Solar 

Roadways won the first GE Ecomagination Challenge, and we are funding a 

Phase II SBIR project. 

2. The Northwestern University Transportation Center is using innovative analytical methods to determine the best locations in the Chicago area for electric 

vehicle charging stations. These innovations are already being applied in other 

regions to support electric vehicle deployment. 

3. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Hughes Technical Center tested 

the engineered material arresting systems that safely stop aircraft that overshoot the runway end. It is deployed at over 50 runway ends at over 35 major 

airports, and has prevented seven major accidents. 

4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) research has brought many improvements to daily transportation operations—traffic management centers, improved work zone safety, transit customer information services (like NextBus), 

electronic payment systems (like EZPass), and traveler information systems. 

Deployment is thoughtfully and continuously coordinated from the start of the innovation cycle with our stakeholders in state and local governments, port and airport authorities, transit agencies, and all of the industries that build and operate 

America’s transportation systems. Each Operating Administration conducts a research planning process to identify their top priorities for future operational and 

safety improvements. These planning efforts are consistently coordinated with 

stakeholders, both to ensure that we are meeting the needs of the people actually 

operating the system, and to ensure deployment champions in the field. Because 

DOT research results range from new data analyses, to new designs and materials, 
16 

to more effective operational methods, to technologies like Intelligent Transportation 

Systems and the Next Generation Air Transportation System, methods for coordination and deployment are scaled to suit. 

Much of our research is undertaken in response to Congressional mandate or National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations and to other pressing 

safety issues, often to support new or refined safety regulations and guidance. We 

involve all parties from the beginning to the end of the innovation cycle to ensure 

that we are researching the best possible opportunities to resolve the safety issues, 

and that our results are deployable and economically effective in daily operations. 

The Department works closely with almost 100 Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) to ensure that the results of our research and technology demonstrations are incorporated into the codes and standards that transportation operators 

use every day to work safely and efficiently. One of our closest partners in this effort 

is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), represented here today by John Halikowski. AASHTO routinely takes 

research results and incorporates them into AASHTO standards, guiding state and 

local transportation agencies in improving planning, design, operations and maintenance. 

The Department is focused on working with our state and local partners to accelerate the deployment and acceptance of new technologies. For example, the FHWA 

Every Day Counts Initiative is designed to identify and deploy innovation aimed at 

shortening project delivery time, enhancing roadway safety, and protecting the environment. A major pillar of Every Day Counts is to move effective, proven and market-ready technologies into widespread use. In support of our local partners, the 

FHWA’s Local Technical Assistance Program and Tribal Technical Assistance Program enables counties, parishes, townships, cities, towns and tribal governments to 

improve their operations by supplying them with a variety of training programs, an 

information clearinghouse, technology updates, and customized technical assistance. 

Continued success in research and technology innovation and deployment requires 

us to keep what has worked, while continuing to find creative ways to break down 

barriers. The Administration supports the following goals: 

• simplifying the existing surface transportation research program; 

• maximizing research funding flexibility so that available resources are applied 

to Departmental and stakeholder priorities; 

• using full and open competition, and peer review, to get the best possible researchers and technologists working on top priorities; and 

• emphasizing performance-based management of programs. 

I would like to call your attention to specific innovation reforms which the Obama 

Administration supports: 

• authorizing FHWA a technology and innovation deployment program, specifically to test, evaluate, and accelerate the delivery and deployment of technologies; 

• allowing FHWA to increase research efficiency by expanding the authority to 

conduct research in collaboration with international partners; 

• reorganizing RITA’s University Transportation Centers program on a fully-competitive consortia model, to better leverage the intellectual capital created 

through the Federal investment in the important work of the universities; 

• authorizing a Multimodal Innovative Research Program to competitively award 

advanced multimodal transportation research projects, facilitating practical innovative approaches to address systemic transportation problems; and 

• enabling RITA’s National Transportation Library to establish agreements with 

other transportation libraries and information centers, to improve the accessibility and exchange of high quality transportation information and data that 

support operations, policy development, and decision-making. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide an overview of the Department’s transportation research priorities. I look forward to answering any questions you may 

have. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Halikowski, you are now recognized for five minutes. 
17 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN HALIKOWSKI, 

DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; 

CHAIR, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE 

HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH 

Mr. HALIKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. 

Chairman and Ranking Committee Member Wu, Members of the 

Committee, my name is John Halikowski. I am Director of the Arizona Department of Transportation and Chair of the Standing 

Committee of Research of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

On behalf of AASHTO, I want to express my appreciation for 

your focus on transportation research needs in the United States. 

In today’s fiscally-challenging circumstances, particularly for state 

governments across the country, state departments of transportation rely heavily on research that leads to practical solutions to 

their most challenging problems. 

The return on today’s dollar investment in research pays off 

many times into the future. Today I want to cover three points 

about transportation research and the need for strong, continued 

commitment and investment. 

First, it is critical that we retain the current, multi-tiered research structure that has worked very well for us. Second, 

AASHTO has identified a number of high-priority policy areas 

where we believe that national research focus is needed, and last, 

it is critical to ensure that the discoveries made through research 

are communicated and transferred into practice. 

First, on our current research structure. There are numerous layers to the current research structure, funded by federal, state, and 

local dollars. This multi-layered and integrated structure has 

worked well in delivering strategic research that responds to the 

needs of the transportation industry. 

About one percent of the Federal Highway Program is spent on 

highway research by the Federal Highway Administration and the 

50 States through their federally-funded State Planning and Research Program. This relatively small amount that we spend on research helps us to leverage the rest of the transportation program 

by providing us with solutions that improve the quality and efficiency of the system. Thus, in any consideration of future federal 

transportation research programs, this multi-layered approach 

should be continued and supplemented. 

Through the existing multi-layered research structure, including 

the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and the states, we can 

support and complement strategic national transportation research 

with our own research efforts. 

Second, regarding the areas of research focus, the State DOTs 

through AASHTO have identified a number of research areas 

where coordinated, collaborative strategic policy research is needed. 

These areas are safety, performance management, interstate preservation, freight and economic competitiveness, accelerating project 

delivery and environmental streamlining, transportation funding, 

and finance. 

It is an appropriate role for the U.S. DOT to take a leadership 

role in undertaking strategic policy research in support of these na-
18 

tional policy focus areas. Specific examples are contained in my 

written testimony. 

For you, however, I would like to highlight a few examples of 

high payoff, practical research in my home State of Arizona. ADOT 

has partnered with the University of Arizona to take our freeway 

management system real time, taking smart ramp metering to the 

next level. The use of this system will enable us to squeeze more 

capacity out of our system by increasing the throughput while improving safety, air quality, and reducing resource consumption. 

In another example, Arizona State Route 260 runs through one 

of the largest contiguous stands of Ponderosa pine in the world and 

is home to a large population of elk. ADOT partnered with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to record over 4,000 animal crossings and over 100,000 location fixes using GPS-colored elk to determine their preferred crossing locations. This has let us know exactly where we need to use fencing to channel the elk crossing to 

underpasses and thereby not only reducing wildlife vehicle collisions but also preserving the wildlife population and minimizing 

the State outlays needed. 

Lastly, it is the importance in transferring the findings of our research to transportation planners, engineers, designers, and contractors. U.S. DOT should embrace the latest methods to assist in 

technology transfer and implementation and be provided with the 

funding needed to share this information. 

For example, the use of web-based technologies, including 

webinars and interactive pages, web pages and online training and 

the Strategic Highways Research Program implementation funding 

needs to be provided for. 

We already know that research, properly transferred into practice, can make a difference in the way Americans move about the 

country. State DOTs stand ready to collaborate with you on this 

crucial effort. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you, Mr. 

Chairman, Members, today. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Halikowski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN HALIKOWSKI, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION; CHAIR, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY

AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

Chairman Quayle and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on Transportation Research Priorities for the next surface transportation authorization bill. My name is John S. Halikowski, Director of the Arizona 

Department of Transportation, and today I am speaking on behalf of the American 

Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) which represents 

the state departments of transportation (DOTs) in all 50 states, Washington, DC. 

and Puerto Rico. I serve as Chairman of AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Research. 

On behalf of AASHTO, I want to express our appreciation to you, Chairman 

Quayle for your recognition of the value of a strong federal-state partnership in conducting and deploying the results of transportation research. 

Mr. Chairman, in your invitation to me, you posed a number of questions. In response, today I want to focus my remarks around the following general points: 

• The current national framework, structure and process for identifying transportation research needs, conducting and disseminating research, and partnering 

for transferring technology works well and should be sustained. 
19 

1Transportation Research: Value to the Nation—Value to the States, 2008. 

• In the context of this framework, there are ample opportunities for all stakeholders to identify research needs, participate in overseeing research studies 

and have access to research results 

• In 2008, AASHTO’s Board of Directors adopted policy priorities for reauthorization of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: 

A Legacy for Users—SAFETEA LU (Public Law 109–59). While those policies 

remain priorities for AASHTO, we have updated and refined our policy recommendations for the national research program to reflect a fiscal environment 

that is much more constrained than we anticipated or planned for nearly three 

years ago. 

• Through AASHTO’s various standing committees, current detailed research 

needs and gaps have been identified along with opportunities for addressing 

those needs. 

The Current National Framework for Research: An Overview 

To build, maintain and expand its vast, multimodal transportation system the 

United States has long relied on the fruits of research—innovations in planning, 

materials, construction methods, system operation, organizational effectiveness and 

many other areas. Innovation through research allows state agencies-even with today’s fiscally challenging circumstances—to efficiently deliver a safe, reliable and 

sustainable transportation system while continuously improving facilities and services. 

The federal government’s support and funding for transportation research has 

been steady over many decades dating back at least to the 1893 formation of the 

Office of Road Inquiry in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1 However, by any 

measure—across industries or countries—the U.S. transportation community invests 

very modest resources in research and innovation. A substantial return on investment from smarter, better, and longer-lasting transportation can easily be documented in terms of such factors as more durable infrastructure and improved operations. But the benefits extend far beyond the easily quantified to lives saved, a 

greener transportation system and improved quality of life. 

Transportation research in the U.S. is a complex and decentralized array of interrelated programs. This reflects the decentralized nature of the transportation system itself, which includes local, regional, state and federal operators and agencies, 

and involves many stakeholders—the U.S. Congress and Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), state departments of transportation, local and regional governments and planning agencies, universities, private firms, associations and users of 

the systems. 

The multiple and interrelated components of our national transportation research 

effort that are supported with federal surface transportation funds include the following: 

1. Federal research and technology transfer carried out directly by U.S. 

DOT, including research directed by the Secretary’s Policy Office, as well as 

by the modal agencies—the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration (RITA). Through the federal program, U.S. DOT tackles highpriority national research needs and shares new technologies and practices 

with the states. The U.S. DOT research program is described further detail 

later in this testimony. 

2. Research conducted by each State department of transportation, man- aged by the individual state DOT members of AASHTO’s Research Advisory 

Committee, coordinated with national research programs and funded using either federal funds or directly by the states themselves. The majority of the 

funding for this research comes from the federal State Planning and Research 

(SPR) Program, which is the nation’s cornerstone state research program. State 

research programs are described in further detail later in this testimony. 

3. Various cooperative research programs managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), including the National Highway Cooperative 

Research Program (NCHRP), Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), 

the National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP), the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), and the Hazardous Materials Cooperative 

Research Program. Most of these programs determine their research agenda on 
20 

an annual basis. The largest of these programs—NCHRP—is funded through 

an annual voluntary contribution of state SPR funds and has been carried out 

since the early 1960s. NCHRP pools the voluntary research dollars to find solutions to transportation challenges identified as critical by the states. 

4. Policy research undertaken and managed directly by TRB. TRB conducts policy studies at the request of the U.S. Congress, executive branch agencies, states, and other sponsors examining complex and controversial transportation issues. Studies cover all modes of transportation and a variety of safety, 

economic, environmental, and research policy issues. 

5. Special research authorized by Congress, such as the second-generation, 

Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2), which is focusing on four critical issues in transportation—safety, infrastructure renewal, travel-time reliability, and capacity needs. 

6. The University Transportation Centers (UTC) Program carried out by 60 

University Transportation Research Centers typically housed within individual 

universities, or in consortia of universities, across the country. 

Each of these components plays a vital role in the overall research effort and, 

while the efforts are independent, there is considerable collaboration and communication that exists between these research programs to ensure the development of 

cohesive, complementary, and significant research. 

Federal Research and Technology Programs 

Throughout its history, a core element of U.S. DOT’s mission has been to promote 

innovation and improvement in America’s transportation system. Over the course of 

the last few decades, this critical mission element has developed into a broad array 

of research and technology activities covering the spectrum of advanced research, 

applied research, technology transfer, and implementation. Research conducted 

through the U.S. DOT allows the federal government to address the more strategic, 

national research needs which are typically more expensive and broader in scope 

than can be accomplished by the states on their own. 

In addition, in order to maximize the effectiveness of these research and technology activities, U.S. DOT supports and funds a host of complementary activities 

including research administration, deployment and training, communication, coordination, conferences, and partnerships with other national and international research 

organizations. 

Transportation research authorized under past federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier and transit authorization bills included funding for national surface transportation research, technology innovation and deployment, and training 

and education. Funding for FHWA’s Research and Technology Program (R&T) was 

authorized under Titles I and V of SAFETEA LU for conducting research, technology and training activities. The largest research component is the Surface Transportation Research, Development, and Deployment program (STRDD) which had an 

annual authorization of $196.4 including $14 million for an Exploratory Advanced 

Research (EAR) program, which focuses on long-term, high-risk research with the 

potential for dramatic breakthroughs in surface transportation. 

This FHWA R&T program enables U.S. DOT with FHWA and the other modal 

administrations to carry out policy research to achieve their mission and address 

their four priority areas of safety, livability, sustainability and economic competitiveness. For example, given the 50–100 year design life for highways and bridges, 

research should now be underway to consider and develop new specifications for 

highway and bridge construction, maintenance and materials to adapt to weather 

impacts associated with climate change. U.S. DOT and FHWA have assumed a leadership role in that critical research undertaking. The states and others can complement U.S. DOT’s research program through the research we are conducting in 

our ongoing programs. 

AASHTO believes that even in a constrained fiscal environment, funding for 

FHWA’s R&T program should be maintained at levels sufficient to continue a strong 

and effective research program. We have recommended funding at no less than $175 

million per year. 

State Transportation Research 

For decades, federal-aid funding has been a key resource for research, with the 

states and federal government jointly investing in innovation. 

Each state receives federal-aid funding through the State Planning and Research 

(SPR) Program first authorized in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944. Currently 

SPR funding to each state equals 2% of its federal funds in the six core highway 

programs, with at least 25% of the total required to be spend on research, develop-
21 

2 Indiana Department of Transportation-Joint Transportation Research Program (Purdue 

University), 2011 

ment and technology transfer activities, including training. This research component 

of SPR can include highways, public transportation, and intermodal transportation 

systems; infrastructure renewal (including pavement, structures and asset management); activities relating to safety, operations and maintenance; environmental and 

real estate planning; and management, policy analysis, and systems monitoring. 

The states use these funds to address the transportation needs that they deem 

the most critical, including, among others: engineering and economic surveys; planning and financing of future highway programs; studies on the economy, safety, and 

convenience of surface transportation systems; and research, development, and technology transfer activities. The variety of activities carried out and products produced 

by this program is crucial to the advancement of the transportation system in our 

country. 

The states’ transportation needs and critical issues are unique and constantly 

changing, and the SPR program affords states the opportunity and flexibility to address those research and technology needs that are most vital to maintaining and 

improving their transportation systems, including emerging transportation research 

needs. States give high priority to applied research to address state and regional 

challenges, the transfer of technology from researcher to user, and research that 

supports the development of standards and specifications. 

The return on the states’ investment in research is substantial. In just one example, a formal cost analysis in 2003 prepared for the Indiana Department of Transportation’s research program, jointly administered with Purdue University, showed 

benefit-cost ratios ranging from as high as 220 to as low as 3 to 1. The average benefit-cost ratio for nine projects, collectively, was an amazing 59:1. In 2009 a similar 

analyses was performed with an average benefit-cost ratio of 32:1. But it is more 

than just good economics. Research, for example, is producing safer highways and 

construction zones for its customers and workforce, saving future maintenance expenses, developing longer lasting materials, introducing new technology and processes, developing environmentally friendly solutions, to Indiana’s waste problems, 

promoting economic growth, bringing on-line faster and more economical facilities. 2

The State DOTs also collaborate on research projects with other federal, state, regional, and local transportation agencies, academic institutions, foundations, and 

private firms through the Transportation Pooled Fund program. The Federal Highway Administration administers this program and approves the projects that are selected. The program allows groups to combine resources to support the project, 

which may consist of research, planning, and/or technology transfer activities. 

Since this program is dependent upon the organization of the core programs for 

its funding, any changes to the current structure could have a tremendous effect on 

the states’ research programs and, subsequently, what can be accomplished. 

We urge that the SPR Program which is funded by a 2% set aside of funds from 

the core highway programs be continued in its current formula-based configuration. 

Cooperative Research Programs 

The states also voluntarily co-fund the National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program through the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of 

Sciences. Funds are drawn voluntarily from the states’ SPR funds. Projects are selected annually by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research, and the funds 

can be spent only for research projects approved by at least two-thirds of the states. 

Each state’s allocation amounts to 5 percent of its SPR apportionment. 

As noted above, the States’ research efforts are decentralized, with priorities determined by experts in their fields, i.e., the stakeholder and user groups who deal 

directly with transportation issues day-in and day-out. Its flexibility allows the 

states to deal with new and emerging needs that bubble up from those on the front 

lines of the transportation industry. Research can be conducted by a single state, 

pooled among several states with a common need or concern, or conducted through 

a national program such as NCHRP. 

Frequently, key research efforts start in one or more states—through the SPR 

program—and other states and/or U.S. DOT expand upon that research and it becomes more national in perspective. Advanced searchable databases such as the 

Transportation Research Information Service (TRIS) and the Research in Progress 

(RIP) database help to ensure that overlap and redundancy do not occur by allowing 

researchers to determine what has been accomplished thus far and what may be underway related to their topic of interest. This decentralized organization of research 

programs has been working well for many years and should be continued in its 
22 

present form to ensure that ongoing research continues and that the flexibility exists to meet new demands. 

Technology Transfer and Implementation 

The final, and possibly most important, steps in the research process consist of 

technology transfer and implementation. Technology transfer and implementation 

can be explained best by a fishing analogy: technology transfer provides the information on what pole to buy and where to find the lures; implementation involves 

showing someone how to fish. 

Research is useless if it sits on a shelf. Thus, the need for effective and continual 

technology transfer and implementation cannot be overemphasized. For most people, 

and by extension most agencies, change is difficult. New ideas may get nods of approval but may not get implemented without assistance, such as champions to get 

the ball rolling, presentations and webinars to get the message out, and pilot 

projects to show practitioners how the new ideas can be incorporated into the current business model. 

Programs such as the Local Technical Assistance Program, which provides information and training to local governments and agencies across the country; the National Highway Institute and National Transit Institute, which provide training, 

education, and information clearinghouse services; and the National Transportation 

Library, which maintains a robust transportation knowledge base for researchers 

and practitioners; provide critical assistance in ensuring that research becomes reality. 

AASHTO’s Research Policy Priorities for Surface Transportation 

Reauthorization 

AASHTO believes that research and technology transfer are critical for federal, 

state, and local governments to provide world-class transportation services to the 

American people. A strong transportation research and technology transfer program 

should be sustained at the levels provided in the last authorization, or at the same 

proportionate level achieved for research in that bill, depending on the overall funding provided in this authorization. This paper assumes that the reauthorization will 

not meet the levels of the last reauthorization in total dollar levels authorized per 

year. 

• Maintain the State Planning and Research Program. We urge Congress to 

maintain the State Planning and Research program in its current, formulabased configuration with a 25% minimum set aside for research, development, 

and technology transfer activities, including the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program. The percentage drawdown for the SP&R program may have 

to be increased to maintain the dollar levels of the last authorization. 

• Fund FHWA’s Core Research and Technology Programs. AASHTO supports 

funding FHWA’s core Research and Technology program at a small increased 

level of $175 million per year, without earmarking and with sufficient flexibility 

in order for FHWA to carry out its mission in national research and innovation. 

• Continue Research Programs for FTA, NHTSA, FMCSA, and RITA. AASHTO 

supports continuing to fund the research program for FTA, NHTSA, FMCSA, 

and RITA (including funding for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics) at the 

levels provided in SAFETEA–LU. If funding falls below that provided in 

SAFETEA LU, proportionate shares for these programs should be maintained. 

• Fund Implementation of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2). 

Provide funding for SHRP 2 Implementation through a statutory takedown of 

funds from the federal-aid highway programs. The percentage should be at least 

one quarter of one percent of the core program funding levels in order to assure 

a stable, predictable source of funds estimated at approximately $50 million per 

year. 

SHRP 2 Implementation should be authorized following the recommendations of 

the TRB report called for by SAFETEA–LU, TRB Special Report 296, ‘‘Implementing the Results of the Second Strategic Highway Way Research Program.’’ 

‘‘Recommendation 1: A SHRP 2 implementation program should be established.’’ 

‘‘Recommendation 2: The Federal Highway Administration should serve as 

the principal implementation agent for SHRP 2, in partnership with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Transportation Research Board. NHTSA should exercise a leadership role in the long-term stewardship of the safety database.’’ 
23 

‘‘Recommendation 3: Stable and predictable funding should be provided over 

several years to support SHRP 2 implementation activities.’’ 

‘‘Recommendation 4: A formal stakeholder advisory structure should be established to provide strategic guidance on program goals, priorities, and budget allocations, as well as technical advice. At a minimum, this advisory structure should include an executive-level oversight committee for the entire 

SHRP 2 implementation program and a second oversight committee focused 

exclusively on administration of the safety database.’’ 

• Fund the Cooperative Research Programs. Fund the cooperative research 

programs administered by TRB at the annual levels established in the previous 

authorization. 

Transit Cooperative Research Program—$ 10.5 million 

Cooperative Freight Research Program—$ 3.75 million Hazardous Materials 

Cooperative Research Program—$ 1.25 million 

• Fund Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Research and Development. Continue funding support for ITS Research at its current level of $110 

million per year. Continue support for on-going initiatives such as IntelliDrive, 

a partnership between state and federal DOTs, the automotive industry and its 

suppliers, to improve safety and mobility. 

• Fund the University Transportation Centers Program. Fund the University Transportation Centers Program at the levels established in the previous 

authorization—$69.7 million. Ensure an 80/20 federal/non-federal matching requirement. 

• Fund the FHWA Training and Education Programs. Continue support for 

FHWA training and education programs at current funding levels, including the 

National Highway Institute, the Garrret Morgan Transportation and Technology Futures Program, Eisenhower Fellowships and other capacity building 

programs. Continue funding for the Local and Tribal Technical Assistance Programs (LTAP/TTAP) at a small increase over the current levels to $15 million 

per year. These programs are significant to the sharing of knowledge and peerto-peer exchange practices among the counties and the district offices of the 

state DOTs. 

• Fund ongoing data and knowledge-related activities. Continue funding 

for ongoing data and knowledge-related activities, including the National Pavement Performance Database and the National Transportation Library. 
24 

Critical National Research Needs and Gaps 

AASHTO has identified a number of focus areas of critical research needs and 

gaps. Funding to undertake this research should come from all of the interrelated 

research support components: U.S.DOT; FHWA’s R&T Program: the Cooperative Research Programs largely funded by volunteer contributions from the state DOTs and 

housed at TRB; federal-state-private sector partnerships and funding support; and 

Congressionally authorized research support. It will take leadership, commitment 

and funding support across all components to undertake the research and innovation needed to ensure continuous improvement for maintaining a world-class transportation systemSafety 

For safety, we know what the goal is—reducing deaths and injuries on our nation’s transportation system—but we do not necessarily know how effective we have 

been in achieving that goal because we don’t have the much-needed data to tell us 

what works and what doesn’t. Data is an extremely important part of the research 

effort that is often overlooked, but research is only as good as the data it is based 

upon. Some individual states, such as Iowa, have extensive safety databases, but to 

address key national challenges, we need more national-level data beyond what is 

currently available. 

Key safety research needs are focused on developing a better understanding of the 

factors contributing to crashes, developing new strategies for addressing highway 

safety, and evaluating the effectiveness of strategies currently in use. Examples include the following: 

• Understanding Crash Causation. Human factors play a part in the occurrence of crashes and need to be better understood in order to develop appropriate countermeasures. Two specific contributing factors for which additional 

research is needed are distracted driving and drugged driving. While distracted 

driving has received significant attention recently and is a growing highway 

safety concern, some of the details are not clear. In the instance of cell phone 
25 

use, for example, it has not been shown that there is less risk associated with 

hands-free use than with hands-on use. Also, drunk driving has been studied 

extensively, but additional information is needed on driving under the influence 

of drugs. A recent NHTSA report showed that 16 percent of nighttime drivers 

in a roadside survey tested positive for one of a variety of legal or illegal drugs. 

Since drugs are absorbed by and act on the body differently from alcohol, additional research is needed to determine which drugs impair driving, and the dosage levels that are associated with impaired driving and a higher crash risk. 

• Countermeasure Development. New and promising strategies are needed to 

address highway safety from the engineering, enforcement, education, and 

emergency medical response perspectives. Reducing roadway departure and vehicle collisions, improving the effectiveness of enforcement activities, strengthening public information campaigns, and reducing emergency response times 

will contribute to the reduction of highway fatalities. New countermeasures 

could include infrastructure improvements related to better signing and marking, work zone safety improvements, and median barrier improvements; vehicle 

technologies such as crash avoidance, rollover avoidance, and occupant protection; and communication technologies that allow vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicleto-infrastructure communication as well automated communication of crashes to 

emergency responders. 

• Evaluation. State, local, and federal agencies with responsibilities for addressing highway safety are continuously implementing strategies and programs, but 

additional information on the effectiveness of these countermeasures is needed 

to enable highway agencies to better direct their limited funds. The National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) has published a series of 

over 20 guides that provide detailed information on a wide range of highway 

safety strategies, but the effectiveness of many of these infrastructure and driver behavioral strategies is unknown. The effectiveness of behavioral programs, 

such as public information and education campaigns, is especially difficult to 

evaluate, and methodologies for performing these evaluations need to be developed. Legislation, such as hand-held cell phone bans and ignition interlock requirements for first time drunk/drugged driving offenders, need to be evaluated 

for effectiveness in changing the behaviors—in the short and long term—that 

are contributing to serious crashes. 

• Data and Data Collection Technologies. Without comprehensive and high 

quality data, it is difficult to determine the nature of our highway safety problems, where the problems are, how to best to treat the problems, and how successful treatments have been. Extensive roadway networks, interaction of and 

communication between the various highway agencies with jurisdiction in the 

states, and limited resources for collecting data are the main challenges related 

to obtaining data for highway safety analyses. With the increased focus on new 

highway safety analysis tools and on the need for measuring performance, data 

are constantly becoming more of a limitation and data improvements are becoming more of a crucial need. Technologies are needed that automate data collection on all public roads, including lesser traveled and rural roads, and to significantly reduce the time needed to transfer data to a database and make it 

available to users. 

AASHTO urges Congress to fund state data improvements at significantly higher 

levels than current ones, and AASHTO supports increased funding for federal highway safety research. 

Interstate Preservation 

We believe that it is essential to focus attention on preserving the trillion-dollar 

investment that has been made over the past 50 years on the roads and bridges that 

make up the Interstate Highway System. Many of the 55,000 bridges on the system 

and the 210,000 lane miles of pavement in the system are reaching 40–50 years of 

age. They may be at a stage where total replacement or more than routine reconstruction is required. These costs are not adequately taken into effect in today’s biannual U.S. DOT conditions and performance reports. 

We recommend that funding be authorized for U.S. DOT and State DOTs to jointly undertake a comprehensive study of the assessed (not modeled) needs and investment requirements of the Interstate system bridges and structures. 

Performance 

Performance management is a policy-directed, data-driven, performance-based 

business practice that links organizational goals and objectives to resources and results. The outcomes of performance-based management include more efficient dis-
26 

tribution of limited resources and a focus on accountability of decision-making. Over 

the last 15 years, there has been a dramatic increase among state departments of 

transportation (DOT) in the use of performance management principles to plan, 

prioritize, track, and improve the effectiveness of nearly all DOT functions to 

achieve the agencies’ fundamental goals. Performance information helps to guide decisions about priorities and resource allocation for capital project delivery and internal agency management and operations. The trend towards states adopting performance management has been the result of several factors, including the demand for 

more accountability from government programs and agencies (both state and Federal), the pressure of scarce financial resources, and the recognition of best business 

practice. 

Currently, all state DOTs use some type of performance management process. The 

most common is to track asset condition and safety data and the majority of states 

provide comprehensive performance data to decision makers to both increase accountability to customers, and achieve the best possible transportation system performance with current investment programs. The primary challenge for many agencies is the lack of funding to maintain and expand the current transportation system. However, by using a performance-based management approach, DOTs can 

maximize existing resources and justify recommendations for additional funding. 

In order to continue the work that state DOTs are doing with regard to performance management more research needs to be conducted. The following are several 

research priorities which AASHTO believes are necessary in order for states to fully 

embrace and implement transportation performance management: 

• Transportation Data Program- A fundamental component necessary to the 

development of performance measures and in performance management is data. 

Research is needed on how best to develop a data program that can be used 

to support a robust performance management process. 

• Development of Performance Measures- AASHTO, with its metropolitan 

planning organization partners, and FHWA has identified a select number of 

performance measures for safety, pavement and bridge assets that could be 

used by all states. However, additional work is needed to standardize data collection and reporting for those measures. Beyond the initial highway asset and 

safety fatality measures, additional research is needed to identify appropriate 

measures. For example, how do we measure freight mobility—by measures of 

delay, reliability or access? 

• Comparative Analysis of Performance Measures- The usefulness of performance management may be enhanced when the performance measures used 

by one state DOT are comparable to those of other state DOTs. AASHTO’s 

members, through NCHRP, support a robust research program that voluntarily 

compares performance for certain variables, such as fatalities, across all the 

states. Many state DOTs would like to continue this type of research extending 

comparison of performance to additional performance indicators which all states 

agree to measure. 

• Development of Performance-based Planning and Programming- The 

current focus on performance measures is transforming the transportation planning process to one that is performance-based and focused. The planning process is where performance management can drive transportation investment decisions—linking performance and return on investment. Support for research, 

including the development of innovative tools and techniques along with training and peer-to-peer exchange of best practices, is need to accelerate the adoption of performance-based planning and programming. 

AASHTO supports sufficient funding for federal highway research to enable the 

agency to continue its research and technical assistance on performance measures 

and management. 

Environment: The AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence 

In 1992, AASHTO established the Center for Environmental Excellence (Center) 

in partnership with Federal Highway Administration as a continuation of its efforts 

to find innovative ways to assist state transportation agencies and their partners 

in improving public trust, environmental performance and program delivery. The 

mission of the Center is to promote environmental excellence in the delivery of 

transportation services by encouraging environmental stewardship and disseminating innovative ways to advance the state of the practice in environmental management and mitigation. The vision for the AASHTO Center is to broaden and enhance the environmental tools and resources available to state transportation agencies and their partners. 
27 

The Center provides State DOTs, our local partners and the transportation community in general with technical assistance, training, information exchange, partnership-building opportunities, and access to innovative environmental tools. One 

example of technical assistance and information exchange is the development of Environmental Practitioners’ Handbooks which help advance the state of the practice 

by describing the latest practices and procedures for addressing environmental considerations in transportation project development, design, construction, maintenance 

and operations. 

Another key function of the Center is to serve a convener for problem solving to 

bring together the states, resource agencies and stakeholder to address pressing environmental concerns with the objective of identifying and reaching consensus on potential solutions. For example, the Center organized a meeting with the state DOTs, 

State Departments of Natural Resources, the Fish and Wildlife Services, FHWA and 

the Indiana State University Center for North American Bat Research and Conservation to discuss and identify the problems states were confronting with the Endangered Species Act process related to the Indiana bat and discuss programmatic 

approaches to solve this problem. The programmatic approach that resulted from 

this process provides for enhanced recovery and protection of the species and eliminates most of the project-by-project review related to the Indiana bat, therefore allowing needed transportation improvements to proceed. This effort was awarded the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services 2007 Transportation Environmental Stewardship 

Excellence Award. 

In 2006, the Center developed the Transportation and Environmental Research 

Ideas (TERI) Database. TERI provides an organized structure to capture and catalogue research ideas by environmental topic. The State DOTs use the data base to 

evaluate and prioritize the environmental research needs from among a constant 

flow of new research ideas that come from federal, state, metropolitan and local 

transportation agencies, TRB, federal and state resource agencies, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders. 

AASHTO urges continued funding to support the AASHTO Center of Environmental Excellence in its commitment to technical assistance, training, and information sharing to help transportation professionals to advance environmental sustainability and stewardship and to deliver transportation improvements more efficiently 

and expeditiously. 

Funding and Finance 

Established in the 2005 SAFETEA–LU transportation authorization act, the mission of the AASHTO Center for Excellence in Project Finance (the Center) is to provide support to State DOTs in the development of finance plans and project oversight tools, and to develop and offer training and state-of-the-art finance methods 

to advance transportation projects and leverage funding. 

The Center provides four primary services: 

• Professional Education 

• Research Services 

• Information Dissemination 

In education the center has implemented the Wharton Transportation Executive 

Program which is designed to provide executive education in finance to senior state 

DOT officials. The program is conducted by AASHTO and the Wharton School of 

Business at the University of PA. The Center also offers forums in Public Private 

Partnership’s education. This past September the center offered a one day Congressional forum for Members and staff on revenue and financing options. 

The Center conducts research on cutting-edge project finance techniques and topics. The Center’s Research Services aim to undertake objective research into specific 

financial management and policy issues, many of which are actually suggested by 

State DOTs. These findings are summarized in a series of Occasional Papers, as a 

resource for project sponsors and policy makers. Most recently the Center joined 

with the National Conference of State Legislatures in a research project to compile 

the first comprehensive set of material on how State DOTs are organized for making 

investment decisions including programming, and project funding and finance. 

Other examples of research and information exchange include the development of 

case study instructional materials for use by the Center and other educational organizations, and interdisciplinary academic assessments of project finance techniques. 

The Center also collaborates with other entities, such as TRB to help organize such 

symposiums as the National Conference on Transportation Finance to aid in the development of state-of-the-art project finance tools and methods. 

Using the center’s website as its primary dissemination tool, the Center is a comprehensive source of information on transportation finance, financial management, 
28 

and policy for the transportation community in the United States. The Center’s 

website provides access to all activities and products under one umbrella functioning 

as a central clearinghouse for all issues relevant to transportation finance, providing 

extensive information on transportation funding and financing including tools and 

programs, information on legislation, a comprehensive calendar of domestic and 

international events and seminars on project finance, a glossary of terms, and links 

to extensive resources germane to transportation finance. 

AASHTO urges continued funding to support the AASHTO Center for Excellence 

in Project Finance in its commitment to technical assistance, training, and information sharing to help transportation professionals to advance environmental sustainability and stewardship and to deliver transportation improvements more efficiently 

and expeditiously. 

Freight and Economic Competitiveness 

AASHTO has developed recommendations for the next surface transportation authorization that support continuation and increased funding for the NCFRP. These 

AASHTO proposals also include freight policy and program recommendations that 

need additional research as a foundation for effective implementation. AASHTO’s 

proposals are consistent with those made by the Freight Stakeholders Coalition, 

which is comprised of the national associations representing the major elements of 

the freight transportation industry, including both carriers and shippers. 

The following are several research priorities related to AASHTO’s authorization 

recommendations that are important for transportation’s contribution to economic 

competitiveness: 

• Defining the National Freight Transportation System. There is consensus, 

but not unanimity, on the importance of investing in the national freight transportation system in support of economic competitiveness. Unfortunately, there 

is not consensus on a definition or description of that system as a guide for productive investment. We must have a firm foundation of research and analysis 

to guide a freight investment program that is intended to generate economic 

competitiveness benefits for the nation. 

• Freight Chokepoints. We know the freight chokepoints on the interstate system that are the most costly. However, we do not know how to translate that 

into a program of improvements that results in improved system performance 

that is feasible and cost effective. 

• Calculating Public Benefits in Public/Private Freight Projects. It is important to justify all public investments made in transportation in terms of public benefits. It is especially important for freight transportation investments 

where there may be private profit on the same balance sheet and where we 

want to document regional and national benefits, as well as local. Currently 

there is no standard, widely-accepted approach for doing this. 

• Measuring Performance. Knowing where to invest and whether or not the investment has been productive requires performance measurement. What you 

can’t measure, you can’t manage. AASHTO has invested considerable effort to 

advance this objective, but more analysis is required to know not only what the 

appropriate measures are, but most importantly how to apply them for policy, 

program, and project purposes. 

• Financing. At present we do not have the funding necessary to simply maintain our core freight transportation systems. We will not get that funding from 

the traditional sources. We need to figure out how to generate new revenues 

for this purpose—directly or indirectly—from the beneficiaries of freight improvements that do not have adverse consequences for specific industries, 

modes, or regions. 

• Multi-State Planning and Investment. Freight moves across state lines, but 

for the most part our processes for planning and financing do not. There are 

projects important for economic competitiveness for which benefits are widespread but costs are concentrated. These projects cannot be realized, without 

immense effort, because our institutions or planning and financing are not organized for this purpose. We need to know how to build on the strength of our 

existing institutions to develop mechanisms for doing these projects. 

Without research in these areas, we cannot hope to have a transportation program that meets the nation’s economic competitiveness needs. 

There is another important category of research that often gets lost in the highlevel policy, sometimes abstract, discussions related economic competitiveness. This 

research is related to simply making sure that the condition, performance, and capacity of the basic transportation systems are adequate to meet the need. Virtually 
29 

all freight moves on systems that are shared with passengers—road, rail, and water. 

Continuing research that addresses basic elements of these systems is essential 

Furthermore, there are many operational objectives for State DOTs that are important for economic competitiveness for which we do not currently have wellgrounded standard practices. Research can support the advancing the state of the 

practices in a number of areas including areas identified above as research priorities 

and also including: 

• Incorporating freight factors into the project selection process 

• Assessing the adequacy of secondary freight routes for large truck traffic 

• Experience with highway improvements to support intermodal terminals 

• Guidelines for adequacy of connector roads to seaports 

• Translating highway engineering and construction experience into the rail 

arena 

• Engineering issues related to truck-only lanes 

• Procedures for managing a rail-crossing program to maximize efficiency on rail 

and road 

• Standardizing bridge analysis among the states relative to vehicle weight 

AASHTO supports sufficient funding for federal highway research to enable the 

agency to continue its research, technology and innovation deployment, and technical assistance to advance all aspects related to freight. 

Conclusion 

Ultimately, AASHTO cannot stress enough the importance of research implementation, transfer of research into practice, and technology transfer. Multiple and varied efforts are underway to move research into practice, and the variety of methods 

to do this are dependent on the actual results and specific solutions. 

To use a potentially overused phrase, ‘‘it takes a village’’ to accomplish all of the 

research objectives within transportation, including developing the data, establishing the needs, conducting the research, sharing the results, and implementing 

the best ideas. And through coordination and collaboration, leveraging time and 

money, utilizing the combined knowledge and expertise, our village is making significant contributions to the advancement of our nation’s transportation system. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Gehr, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID GEHR, 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, HIGHWAY MARKET, 

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF; 

CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL 

ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE 

Mr. GEHR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am David Gehr. I am Chairman of the Transportation 

Policy Committee for the American Society of Civil Engineers. 

ASCE is pleased to offer our views on how to maximize funding for 

transportation research priorities. 

The Highway Trust Fund has been an essential source of funding 

for surface transportation research and technology for decades and 

has led to critical benefits for the development of a 21st century 

surface transportation system. 

While research has provided benefit, in ASCE’s 2009, ‘‘Report 

Card for America’s Infrastructure,’’ roads received a D-, bridges a 

C, and transit a D. To bring these three categories into a state of 

good repair would require a five-year investment of about $1.2 trillion. While an investment of this magnitude is very unlikely, a 

number of targeted research programs could extend the life span 

and effectiveness of our transportation infrastructure. As passed, 

the 2005 Surface Transportation Research Development and Deployment and the University Transportation Research sections in 
30 

SAFETEA–LU were completely programmed or earmarked and 

over-authorized, thus creating a difficult environment to allocate 

funds. 

Additionally, the Federal Highway Administration had no discretionary funds to maintain certain core research programs, meaning 

critical efforts like the biannual conditions and performance reports 

struggled for funding. This speaks to the need for minimal earmarking and free and open competition among non-federal entities 

performing research utilizing federal funding. 

Currently the entire transportation research community focuses 

on short-term, applied problem-solving research instead of the advanced, higher-risk, multi-year projects which would lead to the development of a more efficient system. The longer we delay the necessary research, the longer the Nation delays implementation of a 

21st century transportation system. 

The University Transportation Centers Program should be continued, but the program can be improved. Universities work well 

in high-risk, long-term research, so new legislation should emphasize their role and ensure that the best universities are selected 

through a competitive process. The existing program levels should 

be simplified, and authorized funds should be subject to open competition. 

Given the large number of entities in the UTC Program, coordination of research activities is a challenge, and we run the risk of 

duplicative research. Efforts have been made to improve coordination but more needs to be done. The program needs to reduce the 

number of UTCs in order to increase competition, and all centers 

should receive the same level of funding. 

Awarding each center 2 million annually would provide enough 

critical funding for each center to develop significant research 

projects. To help facilitate a more competitive selection process the 

current match should also be adjusted. Changing the match to 80 

percent federal UTC program funding and 20 percent match from 

the centers would allow a break from using State DOT funding as 

the matching source. Centers would then not be obligated to focus 

on short-term solutions for State DOTs and could focus on longterm research endeavors. 

Technology transfer activities are critical to the successful completion or implementation of research results. The transfer of technology from the research stage to the application stage must be 

emphasized in surface transportation research. The application of 

improved or new technology is the ultimate goal and must be supported by funding. 

While there are some research and publication successes, many 

university programs do not have proper channels for assuming 

ownership of the technology transfer process. A research project 

should need to have an implementation plan worked out with the 

funding agency during the proposal process. Adding this step will 

increase the actual implementation of research. 

Furthermore, the Long-Term Bridge Performance Program 

should be continued in the authorization bill. There is a need to 

study long-term bridge life to develop a better understanding of 

how bridges age and deteriorate. This allows engineers to better 

predict bridge behavior and should lead to improved maintenance 
31 

1 ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country’s oldest national civil engineering organization. It represents more than 140,000 civil engineers individually in private practice, government, industry, and academia who are dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil engineering. ASCE is a non-profit educational and professional society organized 

under Part 1.501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

and management practices. The Long-Term Bridge Performance 

Program can lead the way in this effort. 

Finally, the Intelligent Transportation Systems section must be 

more long-term in nature. ITS is a cost-effective means of addressing rising demand by increasing the efficient utilization of our 

transportation systems. The technology revolution in transportation will require a wide range of independent yet coordinated actions by public and private sector interests. 

Improvements resulting from research and technology remain 

critical to achieving national transportation goals. Therefore, funding for research should be increased to levels that will provide high 

returns on investment. 

ASCE looks forward to working with Congress as it develops a 

robust surface transportation system for the future. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gehr follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID GEHR, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, MARKET, PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF; CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF

CIVIL ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 1 would like to thank the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee for holding a hearing today on how to maximize funding for transportation research priorities. The Society is pleased to present 

to the Subcommittee our views on investing in surface transportation research. 

The Highway Trust Fund has been an essential source of funding for surface 

transportation research and technology (R&T) for decades. Research results have 

lead to many benefits including: materials that improve the performance and durability of pavements and structures; design methods that reduce scour (and consequent threat of collapse) of bridges; intelligent transportation systems technologies 

that improve safety and reduce travel delay; methods and materials that radically 

improve our ability to keep roads safely open in severe winter weather; innovative 

management approaches that save time and money; analytical and design approaches that reduce environmental impacts that support sustainable development 

and improve the aesthetic and cultural aspects of transportation facilities. These 

benefits are provided through several major transportation research programs and 

have proven critical in developing a 21st century surface transportation system. 

However, while research has provided many benefits for the nation’s surface 

transportation systems, in ASCE’s 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure 

roads received a D-, bridges a C, and transit a D. Furthermore, to bring just these 

three categories of infrastructure into a state of good repair would require a five 

year investment of $1.2 trillion from all levels of government. While an investment 

of this magnitude seems unlikely at a time of economic uncertainty, a number of 

targeted research programs could extend the life span and effectiveness of our built 

environment. In the long term, investment in research and development technologies and processes can help reduce the gap between the current transportation 

funds available and the $1.2 trillion necessary for road, bridge, and transit repairs. 

Research funding will prove critical to achieving national transportation goals in 

safety, quality of life, economic health, environment impacts, sustainability, and security in the next surface transportation authorization bill. 

ASCE supports several general principles in the reauthorization of research and 

technology programs in the nation’s surface transportation legislation. Improvements resulting from research and technology are critical to achieve national transportation goals, therefore funding for these activities should be increased to levels 

that will continue to provide high returns on investment. Research programs should 

be conducted according to the highest scientific and engineering standards, from priority setting to the awarding of contracts and grants, to review and evaluation of 

research results for implementation. 
32 

ASCE supports the following actions regarding specific surface transportation R&T 

programs: 

• The research and technology portion of the State Planning and Research (SPR) 

program should be maintained to help support state-specific activities while 

continuing to encourage the states to pool these resources to address matters 

of mutual interest. 

• University research should continue to be supported through the University 

Transportation Centers (UTC) program using a competitive selection process 

that guarantees quality participants and fairness in the allocation of funds. 

• The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) program should be strengthened by giving it sufficient funding and flexibility to implement the recommendations of Transportation Research Board (TRB) Special Report 261 

‘‘The Federal Role In Highway Research and Technology’’ to focus on fundamental, long-term research; to perform research on emerging national issues 

and on areas not addressed by others; to engage stakeholders more consistently 

in their program; and to employ open competition, merit review, and systematic 

evaluation of outcomes. 

• The recommendations of TRB Special Report 295 ‘‘The Federal Investment in 

Highway Research 2006–2009, Strengths and Weaknesses’’ should be implemented. 

• The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP II) should be continued beyond the life of SAFETEA–LU, ensuring that critical research will be continued 

in key areas of surface transportation. 

• Total Research and Technology funding for activities corresponding to Title V 

in SAFETEA–LU should be at least $750 million per year. 

• The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) research program should be free of 

earmarks and allocations and given flexibility to work with its stakeholders to 

develop and pursue national transit research priorities. The Transit Cooperative 

Research Program should be funded at a minimum of $20 million per year. 

• The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) should have a 

well-defined scope and responsibility and appropriate funding, in addition to 

currently authorized research funding, so that it may supplement and support 

the R&T programs of the modal administrations. 

University Transportation Centers 

University research should continue to be supported through the University 

Transportation Centers (UTC) program. However, the program could be improved 

in several ways. The existing multiple levels of the program should be simplified 

and funds authorized for this program should be entirely subject to free and open 

competition. At this time there are approximately 80 to 100 different universities 

participating in the UTC program. Given this large number of entities, coordination 

of research activities, so that each institution’s research efforts are complementary 

and not duplicative, is a significant challenge. Efforts have been made to improve 

coordination, but more still needs to be done. 

The program needs to be competitive in order to award approximately forty UTCs 

through the research title and five to ten through the transit title. Additionally, the 

different types of UTCs should be eliminated, in order to allow all UTCs in the research title to fall into the same ‘‘tier’’ and therefore receive the same level of funding. The funding should amount to approximately $2 million per center annually. 

This would provide enough critical funding for each center to develop significant, 

long-term research projects, rather than projects that only last one year. Transit 

title centers should be selected on a competitive basis as well and receive the same 

level of funding as those in the research title. 

Currently the entire transportation research community focuses on short term, 

applied, problem solving research. By shifting primary research toward advanced, 

higher risk, longer term, multi-year projects, the surface transportation system that 

this nation will need in 40 years can begin to be developed. At this time very little 

high risk, long term research is occurring and the longer we delay the necessary 

research, the longer the nation delays implementation of a true 21st century surface 

transportation system. 

Much of the technology necessary for a future surface transportation system already exists, however UTCs can properly apply that technology for the greatest benefit of the nation. Universities work well in high risk, long term research, which is 

why new legislation should emphasize their role and ensure that the best universities are selected through a competitive process. 
33 

To help facilitate a more competitive selection process adjusting the current match 

would be beneficial. The current match required for centers funded through the research title is dollar for dollar, however the match should be changed to 80% federal 

UTC program funding and 20% match from the centers. The revised match system 

would allow for centers to break away from using state department of transportation dollars as the primary matching source, therefore allowing UTCs to delve into 

advanced research, instead of focusing on state departments of transportation (DOT) 

problems. In general, state DOT’s are more focused on short-term solutions rather 

than long-term, high risk research endeavors. With UTCs relying on state DOT 

funding, this limited focus is carried over into the research programs at the centers. 

ASCE believes that the revised match would not inhibit centers that are already 

very aggressive from securing more than a 20% match, but there will be some centers that can only raise the minimum revenue necessary. 

Technology Transfer 

Technology transfer activities are critical to the successful implementation of research results. The transfer of technology from the research stage to the application 

stage must be emphasized among all participants in surface transportation research. The application of improved or new technologies is the ultimate goal, and 

must be emphasized to the point of being supported by research funding. However, 

while the Federal Highway Administration research program, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, the Strategic Highway Research Program, and 

state DOT research funded by State Planning and Research funding each has a 

mechanism in place for technology transfer, many research programs do not have 

a similar system in place. 

While there are some research and publication successes like the Accelerated 

Bridge Construction program being undertaken at the Utah Department of Transportation, many other programs do not have proper channels for assuming ownership of the technology transfer process. Many times research reports from universities are sent to a funding agency, such as a state DOT, but the application of the 

research outcomes are not implemented. Instead, as part of a research project there 

needs to be an implementation plan worked out with the funding agency during the 

proposal and contract process. After the research a follow up report on the implementation successes or failures should then be prepared. Adding this step to the 

process will increase the actual implementation of research and will provide the primary federal research administration with evidence of research implementation, 

which is currently lacking. 

It should be understood that high risk, advanced research does not always have 

an implementable outcome. Since UTCs are currently unable to push state DOTs 

to implement applied research, this provides another example as to why UTCs 

should instead focus on higher risk projects that do not necessarily require an implementation process. 

Improving Transportation Research Programs in a Reauthorization 

As originally passed, the Surface Transportation Research, Deployment and Development and the University Transportation Research sections in SAFETEA–LU 

were both completely programmed or earmarked and over-authorized, creating a difficult environment within which the Federal Highway Administration and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) had to allocate funds. An 

additional effect was that the Federal Highway Administration had no discretionary 

funds to maintain certain core research programs, which meant that such critical 

efforts as the biannual Conditions and Performance Report struggled for funding. 

These problems were partially relieved by the SAFETEA–LU Technical Corrections 

Bill in 2008. However, the research programs continue to be adversely impacted by 

the level of programming and earmarking. This speaks to the need for minimal earmarking and free and open competition among non-federal entities performing research utilizing federal funding. 

Specifically ASCE would better define a UTC program with approximately 40 centers funded at $2 million annually, which focus on long term, advanced research. 

Additionally, there needs to be a larger Exploratory Advanced Research Program, 

funded with at least $20 million annually. The exploratory advanced research program should then fund only large, multi-year, high risk projects. 

Furthermore, the Long Term Bridge Performance Program, a planned 20 year research program, should be continued in the authorization bill. There is a need to 

study long term bridge life to develop a better understanding of how bridges age 

and deteriorate. This allows engineers to better predict and model bridge behavior 

and could lead to improved maintenance practices and better bridge management. 
34 

The FHWA’s Long-Term Bridge Performance Program should lead the way in this 

effort. 

Bridge maintenance is based on the funding available and which bridge is most 

in need of repair. That usually means deck repair, not the structure of the bridge. 

When the public notices problems, such as potholes, these get attention. The public 

rarely notices severe structural problems unless concrete is falling from the bottom 

of an overpass bridge. Obviously, to properly maintain bridges, more funds are needed, and more of those funds need to go into the maintenance of the structure, not 

just the deck. It is ASCE’s hope that the Long-Term Bridge Performance Program 

will help to provide answers as to how to properly channel our nation’s bridge maintenance funds. 

Finally, the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) section must be more long 

term in nature, rather than looking at five year horizons. A transportation system 

for the 21st Century will be developed in part by ITS research and therefore must 

have a long term outlook. Intelligent Transportation Systems are a cost-effective 

means of addressing rising demand by increasing the efficient utilization of our 

transportation systems. The technology revolution in transportation will require a 

wide range of independent yet coordinated actions by public and private sector interests, which must be sustained by a major federal commitment. The federal government should provide the leadership and commitment to direct the complete deployment of ITS for consumers of passenger and freight transportation across the 

nation. 

At a minimum Congress should maintain the funding that is currently in place 

for surface transportation research in the new authorization. By investing in smarter, more efficient transportation systems now, operations and maintenance costs in 

the future could be significantly reduced. In order, to acquire these efficient systems 

in the nation must invest in research programs today. 

Conclusion 

Surface transportation infrastructure is a critical engine of the nation’s economy. 

It is the thread which knits our nation together. To compete in the global economy, 

improve our quality of life and raise our standard of living, we must successfully 

rebuild America’s public infrastructure. Faced with that task, the nation must begin 

with a significantly improved and expanded surface transportation system. A surface transportation authorization must be founded on a new paradigm; instead of 

focusing on the movement of cars and trucks from place to place, it must be based 

on moving people, goods, and services across the economy. Beyond simply building 

new roads or transit systems, an intermodal approach must be taken to create a 

new vision for the future. 

The nation’s economic competitiveness will be tied to the ability to reduce congestion, reduce use of fossil fuels, and reduce the production of greenhouse gases. This 

work can only be done through high risk, advanced, long-term research. The transportation research title in the new surface transportation authorization bill, must 

emphasize this need and therefore should focus on the UTC program, the ITS section, the surface transportation research section that supports the Federal Highway 

Administration, and the Exploratory Advanced Research Program. ASCE looks forward to working with the Congress as it develops robust surface transportation authorization legislation which is founded on a strong national vision, adequate funding and new technology and research, and creates an integrated, multi-modal national transportation system. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes Dr. Feller for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. IRWIN FELLER, 

PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF ECONOMICS, 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY; 

SENIOR VISITING FELLOW, AMERICAN 

ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE 

Dr. FELLER. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Wu. It 

is an honor to testify——— 

Chairman QUAYLE. Dr. Feller, could you put your microphone 

up? 

Dr. FELLER. It is an honor to testify before this Subcommittee. 
35 

Over several decades and under the leadership of several distinguished chair and subcommittee chairs, this Committee has played 

a distinctive and essential role ensuring that federal investments 

in research and development are allocated to those ends and performed in ways that maximize the taxpayer returns, be these in 

the form of increased standards of living, safer, healthier lives, and 

other forms of monetary and non-monetary benefits. 

The questions I have been asked to answer relate to the vitality, 

productivity, and efficiency of those taxpayer returns of surface 

transportation of specific applications of these overarching Subcommittee concerns. My answers derive from a career studying and 

evaluating federal and State government science and technology 

programs and the organization and performance of university research centers. These studies have been enlivened and enriched by 

service and chairing of several federal advisory panels, National 

Research Council panels, as well as service on the Transportation 

Research Board, Research and Technology Coordinating Committee. 

Let me start with an overarching answer to the questions that 

the Committee posed to me, and recommendations about changes 

in the highway bills’ reauthorization of its research titles. They are 

as follows. 

Deregulate the surface transportation R&D system by removing 

earmarks. Earmarks constitute a deadweight tax on the performance of federal investments and surface transportation R&D. Steer 

funding to longer-term, more fundamental research questions 

prioritized through consultation among Congress, the Executive 

Branch, major stakeholders, and the research community. 

Allocate these funds by opening all competition and merit review 

processes. Reshape the UT system into a smaller number of centers 

as now being proposed by the Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration with provision 

for placing at least one center in each of ten regions to ensure geographic dispersion. 

Modify and expand DOT’s Technology Transfer Programs to 

mesh with changes that occur in the underlying research and development system, and here I would simply extend a previous 

speaker’s statement about understanding a broader 

conceptualization of technology transfer and working with universities on related measures to form closer cooperation. 

Provide funding for systematic, independent, state-of-the-art assessments of the public’s return to federal investments in surface 

transportation. One of the clear limitations addressed in the question to me was how to measure public returns to transportation 

R&D. There are very few studies that I am aware of and to a large 

extent they fall behind the state-of-the-art now being developed by 

other agencies. 

Let me just expand upon these comments. The existing surface 

transportation R&D system obviously produces a steady stream of 

new knowledge, products, and techniques that yield benefits, and 

the UTC System is an important source for replenishing and upgrading the transportation sectors’ need for technically-trained 

labor force. 
36 

With all these benefits, both the design and performance, the 

current system operates under constraints that significantly impair 

its performance, producing a return to the taxpayer well below obtainable levels. Earmarking is not innovative. Earmarking reduces 

the incentives that the faculty have to seek ambitious, challenging, 

larger, more complex, but competitively awarded projects. Earmarking reduces the basic quality controls both at the input stage 

in terms of the selection of products and projects and performance, 

and at the output stage in terms of systematic, rigorous, independent evaluation of taxpayer returns. 

Earmarking, and here I speak from reviewing the research programs of many other federal agencies, transportation research is 

isolated from the larger stream of research being conducted across 

many fields and many agencies and many university activities. 

Earmarking essentially provides no incentive for faculty to collaborate with faculty in other fields. It provides no opportunity for researchers in other fields to collaborate or to enter into research 

with transportation research. Transportation research, in effect, 

has become a backwater, which is inconsistent with the changes in 

science and opportunities for collaborative, interdisciplinary work. 

And lastly, I would emphasize that these are not my views alone. 

I am privileged to say that I believe I am reflecting the views of 

many of the leaders of the transportation research system. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Wu. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Feller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. IRWIN FELLER, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF ECONOMICS, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY; SENIOR VISITING FELLOW, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

It is an honor to be invited to testify before the House Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation. 

Over several decades and under the leadership of several distinguished committee 

and subcommittee chairs, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and 

its Subcommittees have played a distinctive and essential role in ensuring that the 

Federal Government’s investments in research and development are allocated to 

those ends and performed in ways that maximize the taxpayer’s benefits, be these 

in the form of increased standards of living, safer, healthier lives, or comparable 

monetary and non-monetary returns. Spanning the R&D, technology transfer and 

related educational activities of individual Federal agencies and departments, it has 

assumed responsibility for monitoring the performance of major components of the 

larger Federal R&D enterprise. It thus has contributed and continues to significantly contribute to the vitality, productivity, and efficiency-and thus taxpayer returns-of this enterprise. 

CONTEXT 

The questions that I have been asked to respond to in today’s testimony on Transportation Research Priorities are specific applications of the Committee’s larger purview. Correspondingly, my answers are specific applications to the field of surface 

transportation research of overarching principles and findings about how best to allocate Federal R&D funds to achieve maximum benefits and how to assess the performance of those receiving these funds. 

These answers distill findings from a career as a researcher into technology transfer, evaluation of Federal and state government science and technology programs, 

performance measurement, and the organization of university research centers. This 

research has been enriched, and enlivened, by service as a member and chair of numerous Federal agency advisory and evaluation panels, related experiences on several National Research Council committees charged with studying the effectiveness 

of the Federal R&D programs, and similar international experiences, including advisory and consulting work for the European Commission, the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation and several countries. 
37 

My work on technology transfer was the basis for an invitation to become a member of the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC), on which I served between September 1, 1997, and August 31, 2003. Likewise, my work on comparative national science and innovation 

policies has led to my current membership on the National Research Council‘s Committee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transportation. 

My answers to Questions (2)-(5) in the Committee’s invitation thus blend facts 

and findings that span most of the Federal Government’s domestic R&D activities, 

with working knowledge of specific Federal surface transportation R&D program 

and policy issues. My expertise regarding the technical contents of specific R&D programs and projects though is limited. My answer to Question (1), which requests 

a brief overview of the Transportation Board’s roles and responsibilities is taken 

from the TRB’s website and communications with TRB staff. 

In key respects, my answers restate long recognized, well documented, and 

articulately expressed concerns about the shortcomings of the current system of 

Federal funding of surface transportation research that can be found in numerous 

independent, expert reports and in previous testimony before this Committee and 

other Congressional committees. These shortcomings include the excessive earmarking of transportation funds that limits the ability of Department of Transportation agencies to shape a coherent, sustainable national transportation R&D program and the dilution of the impact of Federal R&D research dollars associated 

with having to disburse them through an unduly large number of University Transportation Centers (UTCs). Each condition drives the transportation research system 

to short-term, incremental research undertakings at the expense of the higher priority, longer term, more fundamental, more collaborative and thereby more 

impactful research topics that could be funded with the same research dollars. Simply put, current arrangements constitute systemic obstacles to garnering the maximum benefits from Federal surface transportation R&D outlays. 

If there is a value-added to be found and generated by my testimony, it rests perhaps in two things. First, as evidenced by enactment of the Government Performance Results Act and recent salutary reforms already taken to reduce earmarking 

across the swathe of Federal government expenditures, Congress has demonstrated 

an increasingly unwillingness to accept inefficient budget practices and ineffective 

programs. Thus, on this Committee, as well as hopefully on related authorization 

and Appropriations Committee, old words may be heard by new ears. 

Second, viewing transportation R&D from the enlarged cross-agency perspective 

that weaves through my answers offers additional, new insights into why current 

arrangements for funding and organizing transportation R&D are inconsistent with 

basic principles for justifying Federal government investments in domestic R&D. 

Equally importantly, as my answers detail, current arrangements are inconsistent 

with the internal dynamics of scientific discovery and technological innovation. It is 

not that some beneficial results do not emerge from current surface transportation 

research programs. Of course, they do. Rather, it is that the benefits are small relative to what is needed and what is possible. 

QUESTIONS 

(1) TRB in the National Academies 

TRB is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council—a private, 

nonprofit institution that is the principal operating agency of the National Academies in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The National Research Council is jointly administered by 

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

Institute of Medicine. 

TRB was created in the 1920s to be an intermediary between newly formed state 

highway departments and research programs and the federal government, then the 

Bureau of Public Roads. Since the 1980s TRB has also convened committees under 

the auspices of the National Research Council, which advise Congress and federal 

agencies on transportation policy issues and evaluate and advise agency research 

programs. 

TRB is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including 

the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other 

organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Since 

its inception, TRB has provided opportunities for dialogue, information exchange, 

and sharing of research activities (to avoid duplication of effort) and research results. For more than 40 years TRB has been a multimodal research organization 

with activities in all modes. TRB provides an extensive portfolio of services, including: 
38 

• Information exchange on current transportation research and practice, 

• Management of cooperative research and other research programs, 

• Analyses of national transportation policy issues and guidance on federal and 

other research programs, and 

• Publications and access to research information from around the world. 

These activities annually engage more than 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other 

transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and 

academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest by participating on TRB committees, panels, and task forces. 

(2) Earmarking 

Earmarks are a tax on the rate of return to the national investment in transportation R&D. Earmarks constrain the publicly funded transportation research system’s ability to produce other than incremental solutions to incremental problems. 

Legitimate objectives to insure that the national transportation R&D portfolio take 

into account geographical, climatic, and demographic differences while simultaneously providing geographically dispersed opportunities for the education and 

training of technically trained transportation personnel do not require earmarks. 

These objectives can be met by far simpler, more cost-effective policies and programs. 

Indeed, to someone who has only recently migrated into the domain of transportation R&D, its most striking landscape feature, as documented in several TRB reports and the overview article, ‘‘Earmarking in the U.S. Department of Transportation Research Programs,’’ by Ann Brach and Martin Wachs (Transportation Research Part A 39 (2005), 501–522), is the pervasiveness of earmarking in the allocation of transportation R&D programs. Both in terms of total DOT transportation research and the allocation of UTC funds, earmarking has gone viral. Its causes have 

moved from the opportunistic actions of influential members of Congress to designate funds for selected purposes and/or performers within their jurisdictions to 

what I have termed a race to the bottom among academic administrators and faculty who increasingly ‘‘view earmarks . . . as an acceptable way to get financial support for projects and facilities that might not survive review procedures based on 

merit’’ (‘‘Research Subverted by Academic Greed,’’ Chronicle of Higher Education, 

January 16, 2004; B6ff). 

Only in my earlier work on the U.S. agricultural research and technology transfer 

system have I encountered such pervasive earmarking. This comparison, I believe, 

is an especially telling one in considering the future. Earmarking contributed to 

‘‘same old/ same old’’ research agendas—some of it highly productive, some of it 

mundane-of agricultural researchers in the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service 

and university faculty receiving funds via State Agricultural Experiment Stations. 

It thus was a factor in the limited role of these research communities in the genetics-biotechnology scientific and technological revolution that has since transformed 

plant and animal research. The major scientific and technological advances that 

spawned this revolution came from researchers in the life sciences whose work was 

funded by other Federal agencies and other sources. Indeed, the backwater nature 

of mainstream agricultural research even gave rise to proposals, some of them originating in this Committee, for moving funding for agricultural research from USDA 

to other Federal agencies. Even today, the mix of formula funding and competitive 

awards in the funding of agricultural research remains at issue, but at least it is 

one openly debated, leading to some acceptance, albeit at times grudgingly, that 

some provision for all-comer, competitively awarded grants is needed to insure the 

continuing vitality and thus productivity of the underlying research. 

Earmarking, by definition, is a method for circumventing the quality control contained within competitive, merit review processes. The result is not necessarily that 

earmarked projects do not produce useful findings. Research by definition involves 

uncertainty; not inconceivably, as in selecting single entries from two sample distributions, one may find some earmarked awards producing results that are at least 

as good or better by some standard than those allocated by competitive merit review 

processes. But one has every reason to expect that a comparison of overall statistics—mean, mode, lower and upper tails—will document the greater return on the 

public’s investment to those allocated via competitive, merit review processes. 

Beyond the quality control issue, there are increasingly compelling reasons to expect this difference. These differences derive from the dynamics of faculty and institutional behavior and the dynamics of scientific and technological discovery. 

Earmarking of academic R&D funds is enervating. It provides researchers and 

their institutions with assured funding that need not necessarily require their best 

efforts. It reduces the incentives faculties have to respond to new scientific or tech-
39 

nological advances or new sources of funding. As a dean of engineering once lamented during an interview I conducted during a study of the determinants of university research competitiveness, he had little ability to motivate his faculty to seek 

larger, more technically challenging but competitively awarded grants because they 

were ‘‘comfortable’’ with the support for summer salaries and graduate research assistants they received from a congressional earmark. 

Insulation from competitive, merit review processes also removes opportunities for 

constructive learning. Painful and idiosyncratic at times that it can be, and here I 

speak from considerable experience, running the gauntlet of competitive merit reviews can contribute significantly to the improvement of one’s work. The judgment 

and advice of peers about ways to reconceptualize a problem or to attend to otherwise overlooked analytical techniques or data sources are low cost ways of increasing the yield from specific projects. These opportunities are missed or diluted when 

earmarking occurs. 

My current research into the dynamics of scientific and technological advances 

across many fields of endeavor highlights yet another debilitating effect of earmarking on the returns to Federal investments in transportation research. As crossdisciplinary, cross-sector/collaborative research becomes an increasingly essential 

element in generating significant/transformative/impactful discoveries, other Federal 

R&D agencies have responded by increasing their support for multi-year, multi-institutional R&D awards. A key requirement in this new mode of funding academic 

science is the requirement that the research program involve participation by faculties in multiple disciplines, departments, and colleges. 

Cross-fertilization of ideas, techniques and discoveries are increasingly the seedbed of significant advances, not only in ‘‘basic’’ science but also in mission-oriented/ 

problem-focused research. To cite but one of numerous contemporary examples, the 

University of California-Santa Cruz’s Center for Adaptive Optics research efforts to 

improve the precision of telescopes used in astronomical research also have yielded 

important advances in vision science that ultimately will enter into practical applications in optometry. 

Existing earmarking arrangements limit these possibilities in transportation 

R&D. In particular, earmarking serves to isolate the transportation research community from researchers in cognate disciplines. Isolation occurs because the recipients of earmarks have little incentive to seek out or engage colleagues in disciplines 

whose work may enhance their own. Further contributing to this isolation is that 

faculties outside of the transportation field have little opportunity to extend their 

techniques or findings to transportation related problems. Isolation in turn contributes to making transportation R&D an academic research backwater. 

Indeed, writing now clearly as a lay person and not a technical expert, I continue 

to be struck by the opportunities for collaboration and cross fertilization of ideas and 

techniques—all pointing to higher returns on the nation’s investments in R&D—in 

the thematic areas I have encountered during my participation in a recent assessment by the American Association for the Advancement of Science of the National 

Science Foundation’s Science and Technology Center’s program and those identified 

in several TRB reports about opportunities and needs in transportation R&D. New 

materials, nanotechnology, remote sensing, optics, computer software, and more, are 

but a few such examples of the research being conducted by these centers that appear to connect directly to the larger transportation R&D agenda. A more open, 

flexible and competitive transportation system that fosters such connections would 

contribute both to more impactful findings and by narrowing the gap between discovery-oriented and mission-oriented work also serve to accelerate the incorporation 

of new scientific and technological discoveries into socially beneficial practices. 

The essential point to my answer about earmarking is that it is mainly a restatement of views already expressed by key performers and users of transportation 

R&D. One of the most striking, and indeed gratifying experiences, I had as a member of the RTCC that prepared the 2001 report, The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology (Transportation Research Board, Special Report 261) was to 

observe its members-representatives from industry, state government, universities, 

not-for-profit organizations, and professional association-advance as a core recommendation that: 

‘‘University transportation research funded under the UTC program should be 

subject to the same guidelines as FHWA’s R&T program-open competition, merit review, stakeholder involvement, and continuing assessment of outcomes-to ensure 

maximum return of the funds invested (p.9).’’ Similarly, the 2008 RTCC report, The 

Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006–2009, offers as a recommendation: 

‘‘To the maximum extent practical, research funding should be awarded through 

competition and merit review’’ (TRB 295, p.4). 
40 

Far more important than may be my views, it is the stakeholder community that 

is asking for relief from current earmarking arrangements. It is they who are asking 

to be allowed to be all that they can be. 

(3) 

This is a multi-part question, with my answers limited to the two areas—measuring returns to Federal investments in research and technology transfer-on which 

I have conducted research and professional activities. My answer to the question, 

‘‘How is the value of Federal transportation measured,’’ is based on a general impression, augmented by a review of FHWA’s Office of Research Development and 

Technology’s 2007 ‘‘Synthesis of R&D Benefits Case Studies,’’ which reports on findings from 3 contractor studies. 

At present, assessment of the value of transportation R&D appears to be based 

heavily on expert review panels, augmented, as above, with infrequent contractor 

studies. Expert review is a mainstream technique, widely used by and for Federal 

agencies to assess R&D programs. But it is not state-of-the art. Increasingly, both 

Congress and the Executive Branch are demanding or requiring that expert judgment be augmented and/or supported by ‘‘evidence,’’ typically of a quantitative nature. 

As the author of several recent review articles on measuring the returns to Federal government R&D and as an active participant in recent workshops and forums 

relating to the ‘‘science of science policy research,’’ I recall no participation of anyone 

whose work bore upon transportation R&D. Noting that I have not had time to conduct a full review of the above cited contractor studies or the larger published literature, I am not presently aware of any studies related to transportation research 

that have employed the concepts—e.g., knowledge spillovers; social savings—or employed the methodological techniques—e.g., network analyses, patent analysis, 

bibliometric analysis—that are becoming standard components of efforts to measure 

the value of Federal R&D in other domestic domains. 

The cause and consequences of this lag are circular. Without the type of evidence 

now being demanded of research programs in budget reviews, advocates for Federal 

support of transportation research are at a competitive disadvantage relative to 

those in other fields who have advanced beyond review panels and are tackling the 

admittedly formidable challenges of deriving valid and credible estimates of outcomes and impacts from what is inherently a long-term, circuitous and probabilistic 

process. Lacking funds, and especially discretionary funds to support policy oriented 

research, which is not cheap, DOT and its subunits cannot gather the type of evidence needed to make a ‘‘convincing’’ case about the value its research activities 

have generated. 

My answer to the question, ‘‘Is technology transfer from federally-funded research 

and development effective,’’ and ‘‘How could it be strengthened’’ is an indirect one, 

in part again because of what I perceive to be the limited availability of quantitative 

evidence that would permit program level assessments along cost-effectiveness or 

benefit-cost lines, and in part because the processes of technology transfer are so 

variable and context dependent that it is difficult to generalize from one or a few 

cases—successes or not—to a program level assessment. 

Certainly, one can point to notable successes in technology transfer. Moving beyond the justifiably oft-cited example of SuperPave, my favorite example based on 

personal experience as a taxpaying consumer is the increased adoption of roundabouts. According to TRB 295, the diffusion of roundabouts was spurred by an 

FHWA 2000 report, Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, which is described as 

having lent ‘‘legitimacy and credibility to an alternative intersection design.’’ (p. 78) 

that has considerable safety benefits. I now encounter roundabouts on Route 15 

crossing over between Virginia and Pennsylvania and most especially, and thankfully, on Route 179 between Oak Creek and Sedona, when my wife and I spend time 

there in the winter. I also believe that I am about to get a roundabout in my local 

neighborhood as construction continues on a new intersection between Old 

Gatesburg Road and Pine Hall Road in Ferguson Township, Pennsylvania. 

DOT’s existing technology transfer programs consists of information dissemination, technical assistance, and demonstration projects. These are the tried and true 

technology transfer techniques of most Federal agencies. Thus FHWA’s Priority, 

Market-Ready Technologies and Innovations List which offers clear, concise, and informative information about ‘‘vetted’’ new technologies is one means of reducing the 

technical and regulatory uncertainties associated with trying new things, thereby 

making them more attractive to potential adopters. 

What needs to be considered here is less the present than the future. The design 

and operation of a technology transfer system must be based on the design, operation and outputs of its parent R&D system. Whatever may be the current level of 
41 

effectiveness of DOT’s technology transfer activities, a new, expanded Federal role 

and set of techniques will be required if the recommendations relating to the restructuring of the direction and conduct of transportation research contained in the 

other answers are adopted. 

In particular, a shift to a system directed at longer-term, more exploratory research, especially one predicated heavily on the participation of universities, requires a broader conceptualization of meaning and implementation of technology 

transfer. Only sketching here the elements of such a system, added emphasis would 

need to be given on how the Federal government could assist in the development 

of university-industry-state and local government cooperative agreements or research centers that provide for closer, upfront connections between research agendas 

and user needs. Also, under a similar revamping of the research agendas of UTCs, 

additional attention would need to be given to policies and terms relating to patent 

and licensing arrangements between Federal labs and universities and private sector firms. Again, focusing on technology transfer from the UTCs, added attention 

would need to be given to the role that the placement and mobility of graduates of 

university research centers or of other university degree programs plays in disseminating new practices into the agencies and firms in which they work. 

(4) University Transportation Centers 

I am aware that in the interval between the Subcommittee’s invitation to me to 

address this topic and submission of my written testimony, important administrative actions have been taken by DOT to modify the program. Specifically, it is my 

understanding that the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) 

has decided to end funding for all 59 UTCs (including those selected through competition) and hold a new competition that will select a total of 20 UTCs. 

Recognizing then that I address a situation much in flux, my answers relate to 

the previous setting, while in the process being consistent with the general thrust 

of RITA’s recent actions. 

My recommendations for improving the University Transportation Center program essentially extend the above answers about the need to curtail the earmarking 

of transportation research funds to specific projects and performers, with the added 

observation that specific provisions of the UTC program further sap its potential to 

be a significant contributor to a vibrant national transportation R&D program. In 

particular, the requirement that UTCs match their federal funding with nonfederal 

funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis and the peanut butter spreading of program 

funds among such a large number of recipients cannot but serve to drive research 

agendas to short-term, applied projects. Basing my answer on my experience as a 

social science researcher accustomed to the modest size awards offered by NSF but 

also as the director for 25 years of a social science research institute in which single 

investigators received competitive multi-year awards for several hundred thousand 

dollars, the $500,000 annually awarded to the earmarked Tier II schools is below 

the threshold needed on average to engage in a substantial, sustained research program. 

The program’s 4 tier categorization serves little purpose but to ensure that each 

state has 1 center, each doing what it states it can do best, with little regard for 

an integrated, priority-driven national transportation R&D agenda. Moreover, quality control checks on the program’s performance are reported as weak or lacking. 

According to the 2008 TRB, The Federal Investment in Highway Research, only 38 

percent of the Title V UTCs are awarded their funds competitively (p. 77). More 

strikingly, in contrast to the increasingly rigorous evaluations already undertaken 

or being planned for the R&D programs of agencies such as NIH, NSF, NIST, DOE, 

and USDA, ‘‘There is little program oversight for the earmarked universities’’ (TRB, 

2008; p. 73). 

Overall, whatever its initial merits as both a research and educational program, 

at present the UTC program is poorly designed to produce substantial returns. The 

program requires fundamental re-engineering based on the design principles of providing adequate funds for some smaller number of competitively selected universities so that they can engage in longer term, more fundamental research. The original design principal of one UTC in each of 10 districts should be retained, with the 

collective university research agenda closely linked to a clearly articulated set of national transportation R&D priorities. Rather than relying on earmarking to insure 

participation of other universities (and political jurisdictions), one of the selection 

criteria used to competitively select host institutions should be the extent to which 

the proposed host institution can demonstrate partnership relationships with other 

universities and stakeholders within the region. 
42 

(5) Recommendation 

The above answers not surprisingly lead to this final answer about recommended 

changes in the highway bill’s reauthorization of its research titles. My overarching 

recommendation is to deregulate transportation R&D. Existing provisions are overly 

restrictive, prescriptive, and inflexible. New titles should be based on setting forth 

broad national transportation objectives—economic productivity/competitiveness/efficiency; safety and the like, as have been identified in earlier national reports; funding for these objectives should reflect mutually arrived at agreement among Congress, the Executive, and stakeholders about the relative priorities to be assigned 

among these objectives along with the assessments of existing and newly consulted 

relevant research communities about the feasibility and the opportunities predicted 

for research and development; funding should be provided for a modest number of 

multi-year research centers in order to foster longer-term, interdisciplinary research, with awards made on the basis of competitive merit review; funding also 

should be provided for all-comer, unsolicited proposals directed at stated research 

priorities, with awards again based on competitive, merit review; and procedures 

should be put in place for systematic, independent, expert assessment of the quality 

of research and of subsequent impacts. 

In one sense, these are very modest recommendations. They integrate best R&D 

organizational design, management practices, and evaluation procedures from 

across Federal agencies. They are clearly grounded in the oft expressed views of 

transportation R&D leaders and users across levels of government as well as the 

private, public and not-for-profit sectors. In another sense though they clearly are 

stretch goals for the Congress and for the relevant stakeholder and performer communities for they represent far reaching changes in the status quo. 

They are presented here today in the view that this Subcommittee is in a unique 

position to substantially increase the national return on Federal investments in 

transportation R&D by catalyzing long recognized and much needed changes. 

There are more specific recommendations to the transportation research title 

made in the 2008 report of the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee 

referenced earlier. Although I was no longer a member of the committee when this 

report was developed, it is relevant to your work and I recommend that the Subcommittee request a briefing on it from the Transportation Research Board. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes Ms. Peterson for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MS. LYNN PETERSON, 

TRANSPORTATION POLICY ADVISORPR, 

OFFICE OF GOVERNOR JOHN KITZHABER (OR) 

Ms. PETERSON. Good morning, Chairman Wu and Ranking Member—I am sorry. Chairman Quayle and Ranking Member Wu and 

Members of the Committee. I am Lynn Peterson. On behalf of the 

governor’s office of the great State of Oregon, thank you for the invitation. 

You know, I have spent my career as a transportation engineer, 

and you know, really trying to find ways to reduce costs within the 

entire transportation system and as a whole in designing construction. As an entry-level engineer in Wisconsin, I was told that because I was designing for the public infrastructure my number one 

priority was public safety, and while I completely and utterly agree 

with that, what we were taught was basically take everything from 

the 13 three-ring binders that I was told to memorize my first couple months and basically look at adding 20 percent plus 20 percent 

in order to make sure that we were accommodating for public safety. 

But over the 20 years that I have been out of school that overdesign because we didn’t know, and there were a lot of myths out 

there, that over-design is slowly going away, and we are getting to 

a much more cost-effective delivery system. 
43 

So let me just give you an example. If it said a 12 foot lane, add 

20 percent, 14 feet wide must be better. We now know that depending on the context of how you are building, what the land uses are 

or what the users of the system are, you may or may not need that 

width or the width may be needed for something else. 

So we are really looking to reduce costs. In these tough times we 

can’t afford to continue not having the research, especially in safety 

and all of the other things that these fine gentlemen have pointed 

out in order to reduce costs. And we also cannot allow ourselves to 

kind of dip into the point of getting back into the myth creation by 

not having a workforce that is either being trained or retrained in 

what actually the experiments have shown, what the testing has 

shown, whether it is concrete or the turn radius for a roundabout. 

So we have to continue these robust engineering research programs, and I want to just call your attention to page 2 of my testimony where we talk about the types of things that—savings that 

we have been able to achieve both in the Oregon Department of 

Transportation and OTREC, our Transportation University Research Center. The first example that I would point to is our 

cracked bridge program, where we spent $1.3 billion in replacing 

bridges, but we were able to save $500 million by looking at the 

research over a series of years and demonstrate that given allowable revisions to load rating procedures, many of these bridges did 

not need repair or just needed small repairs. 

We also did an applied research with Transportation Research Board that saved about $73 million on expediting project delivery 

while improving environmental outcomes by moving to an outcomes-based environmental approach. 

And then just let me bring up the example of Missouri DOT, who 

has moved into what they call practical design. Based on safety research they have been able to figure out how to reduce costs for delivery of projects and do more projects, and has seen significant reductions in the number of fatalities over the last five to six years. 

This applied research such as ODOT examples must be paired 

with the Transportation Research Board and local advanced research development such as the university transportation centers. 

OTREC or Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium is doing that by integrating and looking ahead of the research 

development arm of the State by working with all of our universities to coordinate research and expertise. Each one of our universities in the State has a specific expertise which I think while we 

talk about needing to reduce the number of university transportation centers, we also need to recognize geographic diversity and 

uniqueness of where that expertise is housed from past years of 

how—where is that research coming from. 

Which is important because we need to be able to implement 

lease cost planning within our infrastructure. One of the largest 

gaps in advanced research is the integration of freight and bicycling into regional travel demand models. It is something we really 

need to pay attention to. 

And as I sum this up, probably the most important thing to remember is that we need to support workforce development. Let me 

just emphasize that we have a lack of engineers in this country. 

Just like Intel which is in Congressman Wu’s district, they only 
44 

look for the best and the brightest, and they are not looking in the 

United States as much as they looking abroad. 

We need to actually develop the workforce here in this country, 

and we can’t do that without being able to provide research-type 

opportunities for them in order to be able to have commonsense 

judgment on the ground when they are implementing. They need 

to be able to test and experiment. Our University Transportation 

Research Centers allow that to happen, and without that we are 

not teaching strategic thinking. 

Let me just finish by saying that the Federal Government should 

continue to play an integral role in financing and setting performance measures in transportation because from a local street to the 

interstate, from a local airport to the international airport, between 

the actual local bus stop to busses and other forms of public transit 

options between cities, the transportation system is a connected 

system, and the user doesn’t care who owns what. This is a shared 

system that only works if all the pieces are working together, and 

since research is learning and learning is necessary to compete and 

create a skilled workforce, competition for economic prosperity is 

tight worldwide and in order to keep the U.S. moving, we need to 

keep our research strong to keep our economic advantage. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Peterson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. LYNN PETERSON, TRANSPORTATION POLICY ADVISOR, OFFICE OF GOVERNOR JOHN KITZHABER (OR) 

Good morning Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member Wu and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Lynn Peterson and I am the Sustainable Communities and 

Transportation Policy Advisor to the Governor of the State of Oregon. 

I would like to begin by thanking you for this opportunity to share our views and 

perspectives on our ongoing research and development activities. On behalf of my 

colleagues in academia, government and industry, I appreciate this chance to address the technical, regulatory, social and financial challenges to implementing new 

measures and integrating new technologies into existing transportation networks. 

The State of Oregon has a long history of research and development, and we learn 

from the cutting edge application of policies and technology we have put in the field. 

This has encouraged an environment of learning within the state. I have benefitted 

as a professional of having this environment by receiving two masters degrees from 

Portland State University (transportation planning and engineering), and the citizens have benefitted with increased efficiencies, choice of modes, environmental 

quality and safety. 

Oregon has focused on applied research, which has allowed us to do more with 

less. In order to maximize this approach, we need all federal programs to be as flexible as possible so that Oregon and other states are allowed to make the most effective use of limited funding, leverage resources and maximize their economic competitive advantages. 

There are four things I hope you will take to heart from this testimony. The first 

is that you will appreciate the key role that research plays in continuing to meet 

the mobility needs of Americans and building stronger communities. 

The second is that virtually every aspect of our transportation system needs to 

be transformed in the short and medium term future, and this challenge can only 

be met through innovations developed through research. Congestion threatens our 

economic viability and our quality of life. Fuel taxes, which currently provide the 

core of transportation funding in America, are not able to keep pace with the cost 

of preserving, maintaining and operating our transportation system, much less improving it. Energy consumption by the transportation sector frustrates efforts to 

achieve energy independence. The future transportation system needs to be safer, 

cleaner, more efficient, more equitable, more reliable and more cost-effective. Research will play an indispensable role in achieving those objectives. We value research in spite of limited resources because research spurs innovation and helps to 

tackle difficult transportation issues. 
45 

The third is that in Oregon our research needs exceed our research resources. The 

scope of our research activities are largely limited to applied research which has applicability primarily to local conditions in Oregon. Oregon and other states rely on 

other programs to carry out applied research that has regional and national applicability. We also rely on other programs, such as research conducted by University 

Transportation Centers (UTCs) and sponsored by USDOT and the Transportation 

Research Board, to pursue more advanced research. Advanced research, like applied 

research, also has a practical objective, but it tackles bigger and less tractable problems in transportation. The next transportation authorization needs to continue to 

provide a means of addressing the needs of applied and advanced research which 

is regional and national in scope. 

Fourth, in Oregon we have developed a very successful model of collaboration between our research universities and between the Oregon Transportation Research 

and Education Consortium (OTREC), the state department of transportation 

(ODOT) and local governments. This collaboration allows us to stretch our resources 

further and leverage our expertise and funding across our institutions, and it ensures that research is able to be put into practice more effectively. Oregon’s model 

can be used by other states and universities as a way to build a successful research 

partnership. 

The Value of Research 

I would like to offer a number of instructive examples of how research efforts can 

be applied in the real world and help government agencies stretch public resources 

further and address emerging challenges. 

Cracked Bridges. A decade ago, ODOT discovered a widespread cracking problem 

in a specific type of reinforced concrete girder bridge that affected approximately 

500 bridges statewide. Under existing load rating criteria these bridges would have 

to be replaced, repaired, closed or weight-restricted for heavy trucks, causing significant economic costs to our trade-dependent state. ODOT undertook the $1.3 billion 

Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) III State Bridge Program to repair 

and replace hundreds of bridges, which was by our state’s standards a massive investment. In the meantime a series of ongoing research projects were able to demonstrate that given allowable revisions to load rating procedures, many of these 

bridges could be shown to be safe with only repairs or without any work. As a consequence, almost 200 bridges were either downgraded from replacement to repair 

or removed from the list of bridges needing work entirely. This research saved Oregon almost $500 million. 

Effective Bridge Repairs. Oregon has many older reinforced concrete bridges still 

in service that are showing signs of cracking and need to be strengthened or replaced to maintain safe and efficient travel, particularly for heavy trucks. However, 

ODOT simply does not have enough money to replace all of these bridges and instead is focusing its limited resources on cost-effective repairs that keep bridges in 

service longer. To do this, ODOT has conducted research to test effective repair 

techniques. Of particular concern is the capability of girders and cross-beams in 

bridges to withstand forces caused by bridge self-weight and truck traffic. ODOT 

has used a number of methods for increasing the capacity of girders and crossbeams, but there was no comparison of these techniques that could help engineers 

decide which method was most appropriate for a particular situation. ODOT contracted with Oregon State University to conduct testing on large-scale beams in 

order to compare the various repair methods, analyze the expected life and make 

recommendations for repair approaches. The outcome of the research provides 

bridge designers with a basis for selecting repair methods, and it provides guidance 

on calculating design capacity for the repairs. 

Expediting Project Delivery While Improving Environmental Outcomes. The 

Transportation Research Board’s Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP2) 

funded research carried out by OTREC faculty members to develop an Ecological Assessment Method for Highway Capacity Projects. This research built on earlier work 

by ODOT to develop a method for systematically aligning transportation and conservation priorities to achieve improved environmental outcomes and accelerate 

project delivery. ODOT used this approach in securing environmental permits under 

the $1.3 billion OTIA III State Bridge program. ODOT saved $3 for every dollar it 

invested in this approach during the bridge program, with total savings of $73 million. TRB has now funded a smaller metropolitan planning organization in Oregon 

to test the methodology. This approach could potentially transform environmental 

permitting for transportation projects from a prescriptive command and control approach to an outcome-based approach that saves time and money and leads to better 

environmental outcomes. 
46 

Energy Independence and Economic Competitiveness. OTREC is conducting research that will help develop tools for local governments in reducing air pollution 

and meeting energy independence goals, all of which links back to mobility and the 

economic competitiveness of our communities. OTREC research has paved the way 

for advances in a number of areas. In the area of emissions, breakthroughs have 

been made on linkages between the impact of emissions and health of pedestrians, 

bicyclists, public transit users and residents due to exposure to particulate matter. 

Important advances are also being made in the area of fleet replacement models 

that consider hybrid and alternative fuels in addition to impacts on emissions. 

Researchers are currently analyzing the relationship between vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and economic activity to see if there is reason to be concerned about the 

impact that VMT reduction might have on local economic activity. Researchers are 

helping to explore wider application of land use models and adapting analytical 

methods to better reflect the relationship between land use, transportation and travel demand for specific land use types. This is extremely important in determining 

the impact of different development types on the transportation system. 

Examples of non-motorized travel research completed and underway include integrating bicycling to improve the regional travel demand model, understanding bicyclist route choice, investigating the effectiveness and safety implications of various 

bicycle infrastructure and the relationship between bike infrastructure and cycling 

activity to the patronage of local businesses. As it relates to commercial goods movement, one particularly innovative and completed research project focuses on the development of multi-criteria tools for measuring and analyzing the impacts of congestion on freight and the impact on reliability, delay, costs and emissions. 

While no single strategy will significantly reduce the transportation system’s energy consumption, together these efforts will move us toward meeting state and national goals. 

Overview of Transportation Research in Oregon 

The two key components of Oregon’s transportation research system are the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (OTREC). 

Our model in Oregon has been based on partnerships and collaboration since day 

one. Oregon’s research program has been more successful than many state DOT programs in finding common ground with and leveraging assistance from University 

Transportation Centers. Part of the mission of University Transportation Centers is 

service to and collaboration with state transportation departments, and OTREC has 

been a strong partner with the state and local governments, including MPOs, transit districts and Port authorities. 

ODOT’s Research Program 

Again, transportation research needs of the states are primarily applied research 

to solve specific problems. The state Departments of Transportation generally expect 

a research project to deliver a product that can be put directly to use by the agency. 

Research interests are broad and eclectic, though most states do have well-defined 

priorities that change as problems are solved and as conditions change. Because 

states expect our research results to be used, these state programs also have a 

strong technology transfer or implementation component. 

The research and development that Oregon carries out independently focuses on 

the unique circumstances of the state: its geography, geology, climate, state laws 

and existing practices. For example, most states use the same engineering design 

manuals and guidebooks for structures, pavements, highway capacity, safety and 

traffic control devices. When these manuals are revised or updated, additional research is needed to adapt them to local conditions. Recent major revisions to the 

pavement design guide and the release of the new Highway Safety Manual triggered 

research efforts in Oregon and in other states to make these tools more readily usable given local conditions. 

State DOTs receive research funding through the Federal-Aid Highway Program. 

Under the State Planning and Research Program (SP&R), two percent of each 

state’s federal transportation funding is set aside for planning and research activities. This system allows each state to address its top concerns and identify solutions 

at the state level. Since the research program is a portion of each state’s federal 

funding, any reduction in federal funding for surface transportation in the next authorization bill will reduce funding for research as well, just at the time that more 

resources will be needed to find the best ways to stretch public dollars further. 

States rely on others to conduct applied research which is regional or national in 

scope and to pursue advanced research. For research that is of interest for more 

than one state, Oregon and most other states use the Transportation Pooled Fund 
47 

(TPF) Program and/or the Cooperative Research Programs administered by the 

Transportation Research Board. These programs allow states to easily partner and 

leverage resources to solve common problems of a regional or national scope. For 

example, Oregon and other states recently teamed up for a pooled fund research 

project to examine strategies and best practices for state DOTs to support commercialization of electric vehicles and infrastructure, a key emerging technology that 

has strong potential to advance energy independence. 

Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (OTREC) 

The Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (OTREC) is a 

National University Transportation Center that was established in December 2006 

through a partnership between Portland State University, the University of Oregon, 

Oregon State University and the Oregon Institute of Technology. 

OTREC has chosen three focus areas: advanced technology, integration of transportation and land use and healthy communities. Each of these four institutions of 

higher education bring their unique expertise to the table, providing a relatively 

small state like Oregon the best opportunity to have a world-class transportation 

research center. The figure above illustrates how the many disciplines at the four 

campuses are interrelated around the consortium’s theme. 

OTREC has funded 100 research projects involving 89 faculty members and 13 

laboratories and research groups. All projects include external public and private 

matching partners with a total of 42 different entities involved. OTREC is multidisciplinary, with 22 different academic disciplines currently participating in our 

projects. 

Collaboration is strongly valued by OTREC, our partner universities and our 

many stakeholders, and it has been woven through our activities as an important 

cornerstone: 

• New Collaboration Among Faculty. Faculty are encouraged throughout the proposal and project process to think of innovative and collaborative approaches to 

research, education or technology transfer. To date, 32 projects involve faculty 

at more than one campus and 78 have multiple investigators. 

• Strong Ties to ODOT and Transportation Community. More than 42 external 

partners provide matching funds of cash or in-kind support for faculty-led 

projects. ODOT is a primary partner, jointly funding nearly half of OTREC’s research projects selected to date. 

• Regional Collaboration. OTREC is part of the Region X Transportation Consortium, made up of UTCs in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Alaska, as well as 

the four state DOTs, with input and participation by representatives of the 

USDOT. The Consortium funded one joint project focusing on regional impacts 

of climate change and teamed up to offer the first long-distance, multi-campus 

class between Oregon and Idaho. 

• National Connections. OTREC strives to meet national transportation research 

and education needs and is active with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Transportation Research 

Board (TRB), the Council of University Transportation Centers (CUTC) and 

other national activities. 

OTREC uses the national DOT priorities to guide its research program. It is encompassed in the strategic plan, and every research proposal needs to relate back 

to one or more of the national priorities. One of the more significant activities that 

ensure that federal research efforts are coordinated at the state level is the involvement of OTREC staff and affiliated faculty in the TRB committees and research 

panels. Fifteen OTREC-affiliated faculty and staff represent 30 different committees 

and panels at the national level. Participation in national-level research activities 

ensures that research is better coordinated and avoids duplication. 

ODOT and OTREC work very closely together to address research needs, using 

State Planning and Research funding to leverage UTC funding, thereby stretching 

state resources further. ODOT employees are involved directly in governance of 

OTREC, and OTREC has a direct role in governance of ODOT’s research program. 

State Planning and Research Program funding, which is eligible as match for UTC 

activities, is a very valuable tool for fostering partnerships. State funding beyond 

the State Planning and Research Program has been used to leverage federal funds 

and has contributed to advancing issues of national significance. 

OTREC has also fashioned similar relationships with Oregon’s MPOs, transit districts, local governments and Ports. Joint research efforts have been established 

around freight and goods movement, transit operations, active transportation and 

healthy communities. Those relationships help to further leverage UTC funds. 
48 

Alongside research, OTREC’s mission includes educating the current and future 

workforce and sharing and implementation of research results. OTREC has been 

particularly successful in elevating the number of graduates enrolled in transportation degree-granting programs. OTREC requires that every research project involves undergraduate or graduate students—a strategy that helps to train the future transportation workforce. OTREC estimates that approximately 102 graduate 

students and 48 undergraduate students have worked on OTREC-funded projects 

over the last four years. The most prominent outcome is helping to establish a graduate program at Oregon Institute of Technology that attracts students from the 

smaller and rural communities in Southern Oregon. 

Disseminating Research 

The research conducted in Oregon has broad-reaching impacts on public and private sector work in transportation, helping to better inform and educate professionals and institutions. Researchers work hard to communicate their research results to transportation professionals who can put that research into action. 

ODOT and OTREC have undertaken a number of efforts to disseminate research 

to a broad audience. For example, ODOT Research publishes brief summaries of research reports for use by practitioners. These are available online and are distributed through the state’s Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) Center. ODOT 

Research staff routinely attend agency-sponsored training events both to market research services and to disseminate research results. 

OTREC, along with many local partners, coordinates the annual Oregon Transportation Summit. The Summit is an opportunity to showcase important advances 

in research as well as an opportunity for stakeholders to provide insight into the 

most pressing needs of their agencies and organizations. The feedback obtained from 

the Summit has been used to guide research emphasis areas for OTREC’s annual 

solicitation process. 

Similarly, the Northwest Transportation Conference brings nationally known 

speakers and supplements them with research and subject matter experts from Oregon universities and transportation agencies as well as the private sector. Presentations are often based on recently completed research and research in progress. 

The program is developed to offer something for the entire spectrum of the transportation workforce from the snowplow operator to the chief executive. 

ODOT Research also offers a number of training events. Street maintenance and 

collection schools that target the blue collar end of the public works workforce in 

Oregon. Courses address recent innovations in equipment, employee and work zone 

safety, signing and roadway marking materials, storm water management and other 

topics concerning innovations and new technology relevant to city and county road 

maintenance supervisors and workers. 

Over the past year, OTREC has focused on disseminating research results in more 

usable formats and has developed a communications strategy for what information, 

to whom and at what stage during a research project the information should be 

communicated. OTREC recognizes the need to translate the work of academics in 

a format that can be easily understood by agencies, decision-makers and the general 

public. Through a more concerted effort to develop project briefs and news articles, 

OTREC has seen an increase in the media and public interest in our research results. OTREC has also had good success in sharing results in weekly OTREC seminars open to the public and streamed over the Internet. 

Since inception, OTREC has funded 19 education and 14 technology transfer activities. Among the array of workshops and technology transfer activities offered, 

the most significant interest nationally is OTREC’s light rail short course. 

One other key element in the system of getting innovations out to local governments is FHWA’s Local Technical Assistance Program. This program funds a center 

in each state, the role of which is training and technology transfer serving the state, 

local and tribal transportation agencies within the state. LTAP is the primary conduit through which innovations developed throughout the system are put into the 

hands of potential users at the local level, in a form that they can use. 

Transportation Research Needs of the States 

Each state differs in funding and priority needs for transportation research, but 

we share many in common. These needs are necessary for all states to increase economic competitiveness, especially in times of recession. Increasing focus on practical 

design, context-sensitive solutions, maximizing the efficiency of the existing system 

and preserving the system and freight movement will allow states to do more with 

less when investing their transportation dollars. 
49 

Oregon has identified a number of gaps in research: 

• Efficiency. In the future, increasing highway capacity cannot be relied on exclusively to address transportation needs. We need to find ways to use existing capacity more efficiently, encourage development and use of alternative modes 

and manage growth through strategic and effective land use planning. Research 

is desperately needed in all these areas, in Oregon and nationally. 

• Seismic Activity. Seismic vulnerability is a major concern in the Pacific Northwest region because of new and better understanding of the Cascadia 

subduction zone 200 miles off the Oregon coast, which presents the potential 

for a magnitude 9 earthquake and an attendant major tsunami. The Japanese 

experience has taught the importance of keeping lifelines open for emergency 

response. Research is needed to pinpoint the risks and to prioritize remedial actions. 

• Mileage-Based User Fees. Fuel taxes are rapidly becoming an obsolete tool for 

transportation funding as fuel efficiency improves and alternative fuels become 

more prevalent. Oregon has been a leader nationally in the move toward mileage-based road user fees. Making a transition to a suitable alternative has a 

significant research component. 

• Energy. One way states can help advance energy independence and combat 

global warming is to use the transportation system itself to produce clean energy. ODOT’s Solar Highway program has taken the first steps in that direction, and there are a number of promising nascent technologies that need to be 

explored, evaluated and tested. 

Advanced Research 

As noted previously, states focus on applied research. Advanced research, in contrast, seeks to make progress toward a solution to a critical transportation problem, 

but without expecting to reach a solution within the scope of a single project. Advanced transportation research currently falls within the scope and responsibilities 

of University Transportation Centers and the various advanced research initiatives 

of the USDOT. While the DOTs do not engage in advanced research, it is important 

to Oregon and to the rest of the states that someone is tackling the bigger problems 

in transportation. 

Stakeholder Needs Identified in USDOT 

Prioritization Oregon supports the top five key USDOT priorities. However, a 

number of other key areas could be emphasized and are perhaps not fully captured 

in the key priorities as currently stated. These include the following: 

• Resiliency in the Face of Natural Disasters. Given the real and present impacts 

of recurring natural disasters and climate change on transportation infrastructure and communities across the country, more research and inclusion of resiliency across all key priorities is needed. Communities that are designed for 

change such as economic conditions, fuel prices and climate will be better adept 

at bouncing back in harrowing times. There are clear examples such as the rebuilding efforts that currently continue as a result of Hurricane Katrina and 

the communities recently devastated by flooding and tornadoes. 

• Consider Equity Issues Across All Priorities. Vulnerable populations from the elderly to the socio-economically disadvantaged need greater consideration across 

all key priority areas. Similar to resiliency, transportation equity is yet another 

cross-cutting issue. For example, those who are most at-risk on the roads are 

older adults, the poor who cannot afford more advanced vehicle safety features 

and kids (where vehicle crashes are the leading cause of unintentional injuries 

and deaths). Another example is providing good access to sidewalks and better 

linkages between transit, pedestrian and bike facilities that make these viable 

transportation options for the vulnerable populations that cannot drive or own 

a vehicle. And equity needs to include a joint transportation and land use component to better link social and community services with disadvantaged populations. 

• Align Performance Measures With New Policy Direction. Useful measures help 

states and MPOs better allocate scarce transportation dollars and better describe system performance to the public. Prevailing performance measures that 

have been used to historically characterize our transportation system are at 

odds with the direction that policy decisions are headed. Measures of success 

are evolving to reflect cross-modal benefits and better represent the transportation system as a whole. The research strategic plan should evaluate the applicability of traditional measures such as benefit-cost ratios or volume-to-capacity 
50 

ratios across all modes and explore other options that support the Department’s 

policy direction. 

• Consider Health as Another Key USDOT Priority. Given the obesity, diabetes, 

asthma and other chronic disease epidemics stemming from the lack of physical 

activity and air pollution in addition to the exorbitant health care costs the U.S. 

is facing, health should be included as a sixth priority. This would address 

issues such as increasing walking and bicycling, as well as the issues that relate to an aging population and safety and accessibility issues of all users of 

the transportation system. Health impact assessments are also being integrated 

across the country as part of the transportation planning process and this perspective is gaining momentum at local levels. 

• Recognize Active Transportation as a Mode. Active transportation, such as bicycling and walking, needs to be recognized as a mode, particularly because it is 

among the most cost-effective investments in improving the transportation system. This national recognition may be a catalyst for cities and regions that are 

seeing significant increases in bicycling, walking and non-motorized travel to 

help further implement infrastructure and safety programs. It would also encourage other areas to see active transportation as a practical strategy among 

others that can help address climate change, congestion, safety, health and equity issues. 

Recommended Changes to Reauthorization of Surface Transportation Bill 

In looking ahead, we feel there are some opportunities for policy changes that 

would help to improve research both at the national and state level. For the next 

surface transportation bill, we urge you to consider some small but important 

changes that would encourage collaboration, in turn further leveraging existing resources. These changes include: 

Broadening Federal Match for University Transportation Centers (UTCs) 

USDOT should re-examine match requirements and allow other federal sources 

as match (e.g., other USDOT, NIH, CDC, NSF, etc.). The next iteration of the 

USDOT research strategy should foster closer cooperation with other federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to work on greenhouse gas 

emission issues, the National Institute of Health to examine linkages between 

transportation and health policies, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Energy to explore alternative energy for transportation. Allowing federal match dollars from these potential partners would encourage cross-agency and cross-discipline collaboration. In addition, federal transportation dollars from a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) should be eligible 

as match. Having a comparable program for MPOs similar to allowing federal State 

Planning and Research (SP&R) funds to be used as match would accelerate research 

innovation and adoption of federal priorities. For example, Metro (the Portland regional MPO) is an active research partner with OTREC making significant advances 

in modeling. They are seen as a leader nationally in adopting and applying innovative transportation planning and operational strategies. 

While there is widespread cooperation and collaboration between Metro and 

OTREC faculty, the inability to use Metro federal funding sources (both in-kind and/ 

or cash) is a real barrier for leveraging local resources. In addition, the smaller 

MPOs in Oregon want to partner on research but have no non-federal funding available for research. Broadening the federal match eligibility would broaden local partnerships, reduce duplication and improve efficiency. 

Streamlining the Adoption of New Innovations 

The current processes for adopting best practices and innovation need to be examined to find ways of encouraging or rewarding research with visible outcomes. For 

example, the current process for adopting and updating the Manual for Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices is difficult and stifles innovation. The state of the technology 

and innovative treatments being developed locally and regionally are constantly 

evolving. However, a shortage of funding directed at evaluating new, innovative 

technologies (including traffic control devices) limits the amount of innovation possible. Innovation that is proven and could help to advance the state of practice 

across the country is often hampered by slow policy changes. A new integral part 

of the DOT research program could be a way to help streamline the process for researching, evaluating and adopting new innovations. 

Research on Mileage-Based User Fees 

In order to transition the transportation system to a user fee that is more sustainable in the long term, the next surface transportation authorization should create 
51 

a research program designed to develop a mileage-based user fee system. This 

should include creation of a policy group within USDOT to oversee development of 

a mileage-based user fee system, as well as funding research and development efforts consisting of pilot projects and implementation trials that will identify the best 

option for a mileage-based user fee and design the system and technology required 

for implementation. 

Making Better Linkages Between Research Groups 

We encourage more visible connections with and between national laboratories 

and research groups, including UTCs. The USDOT Research and Innovative Technology Administration should continue playing that role and help to communicate 

the work that is happening among the various groups. These connections again 

would help to broaden partnerships and promote collaboration. 

Flexibility in Research 

Oregon’s success in working with University Transportation Centers is not typical 

across the country. UTCs are expected to carry out advanced research within a defined topical subject area. State DOTs are interested primarily in applied research 

across a broad spectrum of topics. This can make common ground difficult to find. 

If the expectation is that states and UTCs should work together then there needs 

to be more flexibility in the expectations placed on UTCs regarding their research 

mission, so that they can respond to both national priorities and at the same time 

be responsive to the needs of the states. 

Leadership and Strategic Direction 

There is a need for leadership and guidance from the USDOT on national research priorities. In order for the various players to do their parts, goals need to 

be articulated and hard choices need to be made about what is important enough 

to focus scarce resources on. 

In a few areas there are detailed, well-articulated roadmaps for research. An example is the Concrete Pavement Roadmap, a ten-year strategic plan that outlines 

approximately $250 million in needed concrete pavement research that will help develop a comprehensive, integrated and fully functional system of concrete pavement 

technologies. However, for most topic areas we have little more than very high-level 

summaries such as Highway Research and Technology: The Need for Greater Investment, the report of the National Highway R&T Partnership. Development of 

more detailed research roadmaps in DOT priority areas may help to provide clearer 

direction. 

Conclusion 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee regarding 

transportation research needs of the states. In a down economy, research and innovation prove invaluable in providing new ideas and developing innovative solutions 

to help us do more with less and address rapidly changing realities. 

Oregon is a model for coordination and dissemination of research. The work of 

OTREC and ODOT has been very successful at maximizing the effectiveness of the 

money we invest in transportation research, and our state has seen the benefits of 

that in several instances discussed in this testimony. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you very much, and I would like to 

thank the whole panel for their testimony today. I want to remind 

Members that—of the Committee rules limit questioning to five 

minutes. 

The chair will at this point open the round of questions, and I 

will recognize myself for five minutes. 

Mr. Appel, one of Secretary LaHood’s strategic objectives is to 

support ‘‘livable communities’’. How does the Department define 

‘‘livable communities’’? 

Mr. APPEL. Livable communities in the context——— 

Chairman QUAYLE. Could you turn on your mic? 

Mr. APPEL. Livable communities in the context of transportation 

primarily is about transportation options. Realizing there are many 

different types of communities in the country and we want to ensure our citizens have good access to transportation to get to their 
52 

libraries, their schools, their hospitals, and their retail establishments. 

And realizing that different segments of the population such as 

older Americans might not have the same access to automobiles or 

other modes of transportation as others, we want to make sure 

that, to the extent possible, members of our population are provided these options, so if one mode of transportation is not available, there might be others. In an urban area that might involve 

more transit. In a rural area there might be other creative options 

to provide multiple ways to get from point A to point B. 

But there is no cookie cutter answer to the question of what is 

a livable community because it really does depend on the nature 

of the community, but the transportation options is a major part 

of it. 

Chairman QUAYLE. So will we be able to quantify success on trying to basically achieve the objective of livable communities? I am 

just trying to think of what sort of objective ways we will be able 

to make sure that what DOT is doing and what we are trying to 

do is actually going to be accomplished? 

Mr. APPEL. Yeah. Part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration that I have is the agency known as the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and so BTS is one of several 

groups within the DOT that are looking at things like performance 

measurement associated with strategic goals. 

So to take an example of a project that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics that is relevant to this question, we are looking at 

what we call the inter-modal connectivity database, looking at to 

what extent our communities are making good connections between 

one mode of transportation such as a rail line to another such as 

bus line or something else. 

To measure transportation options you often want to measure is 

it feasible to use a mode of transportation to get from point A to 

point B and if you take that mode of transportation, are you going 

to be able to connect to another mode to get where you want to get. 

There are quantitative ways to measure this by looking at the level 

to which one mode is providing connectivity to another. 

So that is one area that we are looking at. Do we have all the 

performance metrics in place right now? Not yet. It is kind of an 

ongoing process, but we are looking at that kind of metric, that 

kind of measure to say are we providing these transportation options. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Okay. Great. Mr. Halikowski, one of the challenges within the Transportation Research Committee has been to 

balance the immediate means for the short term while also not forgetting about long-term research goals. 

Besides increasing the federal cost share what other policy 

changes might allow the research conducted by the UTCs to be 

more focused on the long-term national needs? 

Mr. HALIKOWSKI. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will answer 

that this way. Arizona, as you know, does not have a UTC at this 

time. Right now the Department of Transportation is working with 

the three State universities to establish a UTC, and to put it in 

more practical terms of what we are looking and trying to do with 

the UTC is this, as some of the previous speakers have pointed out, 
53 

the States do a pretty good job with applied research. For example, 

pavement durability, you know, bridge design, things like that. 

However, when it comes to some of those larger questions of economic issues and what effect transportation projects will have on 

the environment, on the social demographic, and on the economy, 

we look to the UTC to perhaps answer those larger questions and 

guide us through let us say a state-wide transportation plan. 

So as I look out into the future as to what UTCs might be able 

to do on a national level, it would be more of that idea of what is 

the national plan and how do you coordinate that across 50 different jurisdictions. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Okay. Thanks, and Dr. Feller, in your testimony you spoke very strongly about the harm that earmarks and 

the existence of too many UTCs have done—in setting research priorities. Do you think that the Administration’s decision to make the 

UTC Program completely competitive and increase the grant size 

to about $2 million per consortia addresses that concern? 

Dr. FELLER. I have limited detailed information about the proposal, but certainly I would certainly endorse going to a smaller 

number. In fact, I would start from a premise of starting at least 

one in each region, but building it as an award criteria, inter-state, 

inter-institutional collaboration. Two million dollars is certainly 

better than the $500,000, but I am not even sure that is enough. 

I would go for multi-year, long-term funding, and if I could just 

turn to your previous question, the way to ensure that the UTCs 

address important questions is to make this competitive and make 

the award based upon the importance of the novelty of the challenge of the questions that they are willing to address and show 

the capability of addressing, and if they do that, in most cases this 

will require collaboration with institutions in other states and 

other jurisdictions and other partners. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Okay. Thank you very much. 

The chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Wu, for five 

minutes. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and if I have 

enough time in five minutes, I am going to ask three hopefully 

quick questions, all aimed at, well, moving from the amount of research to earmarking to long term versus short term. 

In the background materials for this hearing and also for the 

hearing in the last Congress and the Congress before that what I 

have seen is that about one percent of the federal transportation 

budget is allocated towards research. To the extent that you all 

know, how does this compare with other fields? Is this an underallocation to research? 

For anyone to address. 

Okay. All right. 

All right. We will come—well, then let us jump to the earmarking of projects. 

Mr. Gehr and Dr. Feller, you both addressed in your testimony 

how you feel that this damages federal research. Is it the case that 

the entire federal allocation to research at UTCs and more is earmarked by the time it goes out the door? 

Mr. GEHR. That has been our experience under SAFETEA–LU. 

When it was passed, as I mentioned, it was over-programmed. 
54 

There were more projects identified than there were funds authorized to pay for those. 

So when that occurs, it takes away the flexibility that the research centers have to provide the creativity and the innovation 

when things have already been designed what they are to do rather 

than put it on a performance-based or an outcome-based program, 

you know, with appropriate competition for the award of those dollars. 

Dr. FELLER. If I may add, the TRB report, special report 295: 

Federal Investment in Highway Research, contains the statistic 

that about 62 percent of the UTC funds are earmarked. I think the 

point that I would note is earmarking is not a one-time thing. Earmarking as I pointed out in my paper is a contagious issue. It is 

viral. Once one group gets earmarking, you reduce the opportunity 

for competitive funding. I have interviewed university provosts and 

vice presidents for research who have had checklists of things that 

they were coming to Congress for to be earmarked. 

So, again, why compete in a game that essentially provides for 

lobbying and earmarking? It all—so it becomes systemic. It is not 

a one-time thing. The same groups, the same researchers get the 

earmarks year after year, and essentially the system runs downhill. You have no quality to check. I think Mr. Gehr—you have no 

opportunity to assess the quality of the work that is being done. 

Mr. WU. And the earmark projects tend strongly toward shortterm rather than long-term research. Is that correct? 

Dr. FELLER. That is the general observation that has been made. 

Mr. WU. And in addition to the 80/20 allocation, what are some 

other mechanisms that you or the panel have in mind for shifting 

from short-term toward more long-term, more high-risk and highreturn projects, research projects? 

Dr. FELLER. If I could turn the question upside down, and I have 

seen this and just in terms of evaluating NSF’s Science Technology 

Centers, researchers seek to answer the most important question 

for which they can get resources. So if you deregulate the system 

and have open competition, you will essentially unleash the creativity, the opportunity of researchers in the transportation field 

and in those fields that believe that their work can contribute to 

safety, cost reduction. 

Once you do that, the question really—you will have the Congress, the transportation, Department of Transportation will be 

able to see what is out there rather than prescribe who gets what 

to do what. I would not focus so much on the 80/20. That is valuable. It is certainly an important step forward, but I would basically say if you provide for an open competition geared against the 

set of overarching priorities that the Congress sets, that the DOT 

is charged with implementing, you will be both—you will be delighted and the transportation community will be delighted at the 

richness and the creativity of American engineers and scientists. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Dr. Feller. 

With a couple of seconds I have left, Ms. Peterson, you addressed 

in your testimony the need to ensure resiliency in the transportation infrastructure in case of natural disaster, and this is a particular interest of mine and a particular—of importance to the Pacific Northwest. 
55 

Can you expand upon that and the current state of research in 

disaster resiliency, and I think that we have learned some particular lessons in the Chilean experience. 

Ms. PETERSON. Well, within Oregon itself just with the tsunami 

that hit the West Coast of Oregon I think we have a lot of examples of economic, communities that are going to be at an economic 

disadvantage if we don’t find ways to make sure that our transportation infrastructure can be put in place quickly after something 

happens in terms of environmental streamlining and the way we 

have done outcomes-based type of work but also with the type of 

pavement and how the pavement can drain. I mean, there are all 

sorts of technologies to allow for high water and that sort of thing. 

So I guess I would point to the type of research going on and the 

type of infrastructure we build and the type of environmental 

streamlining that we have shown to be able to do in Oregon to be 

able to get infrastructure back in place as quickly as possible with 

still good environmental outcomes. 

One thing I just wanted to mention in terms of competition is 

that competition is a good thing, especially when we are trying to 

achieve federal objectives. There are smaller local objectives that 

we also need to keep in mind that could become federal over time, 

and we need to be able to have some sort of consistent funding for 

those localized things that could at some point become part of a 

federal agenda. 

We also need to make sure that the flexibility of the types of 

money that can be used for match is a key part of moving forward. 

If we increase the match, if we continue the match, there is all 

sorts of federal money that is not allowed to be matched at this 

time. So I would love to follow up with you on those types of things 

in the future as well. 

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. 

Biggert, for five minutes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding today’s important hearing on transportation research, and 

my first question is for Mr. Appel. 

Under DOT’s new approach for allocating for fiscal year 2011, 

funding for the UTC Program, the agency—you said that there will 

be 20 consortia to conduct research, and my concern is that this 

has just discontinued the funding for fiscal year 2011, for the 59 

programs that are now in existence. What greater benefits does 

DOT’s new approach of selecting 20 consortia seek to achieve when 

compared to the current UTC System? And do you plan on or anticipate capitalizing on the expertise that has been developed by 

many of the institutions participating in the program in order to 

ensure that we build on the expertise? Or is the objective to, just 

to created entirely new centers? 

For example, the new idea of competitively bidding to the 20 university-based consortia appears to exclude the National Laboratories where there has been extensive modeling, university—and 

simulation with the universities and simulation capabilities being 

used by DOT, and it seems that if we are going to make good use 

of our existing dollars in a tight budget year, we should use those 
56 

existing shared resources like high-performance computing capabilities that the government, universities, and the private sector already depend on. It seems like you are just cutting everything off 

to start over. 

Mr. APPEL. Certainly we want to capitalize on some of the great 

capabilities that are out there at the universities. Yesterday in 

Portland, Oregon, I met with the leaders of many of the existing 

59 University Transportation Centers, and I made clear to them 

that one of the primary criterion moving forward in the University 

Transportation Center Program is a demonstrated track record of 

excellence in transportation, research, education, and workforce development. And I would fully expect that a lot of the existing programs will demonstrate such a track record and will be very well 

positioned in a competition moving forward. 

That is not to say that there are not other universities outside 

the program that can also show or demonstrate a track record in 

that area. So we anticipate that there will be a mix of programs 

that already exist and perhaps programs that are new to the game 

to build the strongest pie of Transportation Research Programs 

moving forward. 

Mrs. BIGGERT.With this rapid transition in funding, how is that 

going to—everything stops until you have a competition, and when 

will that be—when will the awards be available? 

Mr. APPEL. Yeah. We certainly have to recognize that universities have timeframes, and they have schedules, and they have 

deadlines, and getting as consistent as possible a flow of funding 

is an important thing to them. In the context of that we also had 

to look at the process that Secretary LaHood was asked to undertake, which is to review all programs in this category in the Department, not just the university programs but research programs 

in general to determine whether earmarks or other term-limited 

programs were, indeed, sufficiently funded. And the Secretary and 

his team across the Department went through a rigorous process 

to make that determination and ultimately made the determination 

that these programs had been sufficiently funded. The funds still 

are important to be used for the University Transportation Center 

purpose, and we want to very rigorously, yet very expeditiously 

move forward in getting the next rendition of the program. 

So, no, we don’t want to stop and start over again. We want to 

maintain as much momentum as we can, and so in the design of 

the competition we are trying to do this in the most, not only rigorous, but fastest way we can. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. The other question was, will the National 

Labs be involved, or will they be included? 

Mr. APPEL. The national labs play a very major role in transportation research across the Department. The UTC Program is just 

one of many research programs of the Department, and the national labs such as the national lab——— 

Mrs. BIGGERT. But they have been involved in this with the universities. 

Mr. APPEL. There have been partnerships with the universities, 

and there also have been grant funding that has flowed directly to 

National Labs, and we fully anticipate that the kinds of advanced 

computing capabilities, super computing capabilities at some of the 
57 

National Labs and modeling capabilities will be part of the mix in 

research moving forward. 

For the university program itself, we are trying to drive a combination of research, transportation education, and transportation 

workforce development, and we want the core of that program to 

be universities, but at the same time we are very open to partnerships with other entities, including National Laboratories. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. And these will be $2 million awards? 

Mr. APPEL. We are still working out what the request for proposal is going to look like for the UTC Program. We are actually 

currently looking somewhere in the range closer to 4 million, but 

nothing is finalized until we work through the details to prepare 

a request for proposals, but, yes, something closer to the $4 million 

range per university consortium. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for five minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to follow up on a lot of the questions Mrs. Biggert was 

asking. I think a number of those questions are the same questions 

that I have about what is going to happen with the UTCs with the 

fiscal year 2011 funding. 

As you know, I strongly support the work of UTCs and was 

proud to help author the research title of the last surface transportation authorization, SAFETEA–LU, in 2005, that designated and 

funded UTCs. 

In particular I want to point out the work of one in the Chicago 

area, Northwestern University, and some of the work that they 

have done, including work related to structural health monitoring 

which provides real-time strain data on structures and the ongoing 

collaboration of the Business Advisory Committee there which 

brings together industry, academia, and government to identify key 

transportation issues and implement workable solutions. And these 

are the types of things I think that we all want to see going on at 

UTCs. 

My understanding is that the Department, in the redistribution 

of the fiscal year 2011 UTC dollars, said that, and I think you just 

mentioned this, I just want to better understand it, the Department believes that all 59 UTCs designated in SAFETEA–LU have 

been sufficiently funded to carry out their original purpose. 

Now, what exactly does this mean that they have been sufficiently funded that they have completed their purpose or I just 

want to get a clear sense of that. 

Mr. APPEL. Well, they were originally set up in SAFETEA–LU as 

a four-year program, and they have completed the purpose set out 

of over a four-year period, in each case setting out a different strategic objective, and over a four-year period addressing that objective. 

We believe there has been great work done across these 59 centers and ultimately the Secretary made a determination that based 

on what was originally laid out for this term of the program they 

have done that, and yet in anything involving ongoing research or 
58 

education, we believe that there are opportunities for building upon 

that and moving forward. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I just wanted to also make sure I understand that 

so universities can partner up with national labs, and what you 

are—the plans right now, I know the RFP is not out yet, but is 

that part of your——— 

Mr. APPEL. We are still working it through, and there are multiple types of partnerships. There is sort of the core program at 

what are the universities affiliated with the core program, and 

then who will they partner with to achieve further results. We are 

still working out the details of that, but we certainly want to be 

in contact with this Committee, with individuals that helped prepare the original SAFETEA–LU. We want to align as much as possible with the principles of the original SAFETEA–LU, at the same 

time building upon it to make an even stronger program. 

So bottom line it is an important question to address. We haven’t 

finalized it in the development of the RFP. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I just wanted to—I would say I think we all agree 

that we want to be spending our money wisely, and but I do share 

Ms. Biggert’s concerns about money running out at these UTCs 

that are doing good work. 

Mr. APPEL. And I have toured the UTC you are talking about, 

and you are absolutely right. There are—there is some incredibly 

good infrastructure work being done, not only at that university 

but their ability to collaborate with other strong engineering programs around the country is exactly the kind of spirit we are talking about, which is to take very good programs and encourage partnerships with other good programs around the country. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And I want to make sure that we are—another 

concern is limiting the amount of money. I am not sure that that— 

the $2 million or the $4 million as you say you are considering now 

is enough money, but the last question I have is what is your timeframe right for announcing more information on having the RFP 

out there? 

Mr. APPEL. We have a team very much focused on planning for 

this RFP in the weeks ahead. We hope to get a good solid amount, 

more information in the next few weeks or a small number of 

months, and we want to launch the competition as soon as we can 

as long as we have done that in a rigorous way. I had a good dialogue with the existing university transportation leaders yesterday 

as I mentioned, and we heard from them about what is on their 

mind. They want to make sure that they have enough time to respond to the RFP. This is coming out in the summertime where a 

lot of faculty are perhaps traveling or away from the university, so 

we want to hear from everyone about what timing works best for 

everyone, both for existing programs and potential future programs. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. If the chair would indulge me 1 more minute, I 

have one quick question. 

Chairman QUAYLE. One more minute. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I just want to follow up, Mr. Appel, on your testimony discussing RITA’s efforts to improve the accessibility in exchange of high-quality transportation information through partnerships with the National Transportation Library. 
59 

Mr. APPEL. Yeah. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. This is similar to a proposal I believe that I put 

forth two years ago when the Science Committee marked up the 

surface transportation R&D title. That proposal that I put in would 

have established a national clearing house for transportation R&D 

results at NTL. 

Could you tell me a little bit more about your initiative including 

whether it includes any efforts to promote the dissemination of or 

transfer of R&D results to industry and to government transportation workers? 

Mr. APPEL. First of all, we are extremely appreciative of your 

leadership on the—on this topic of national transportation library 

collaboration. We have, as you know, we have a national transportation library at DOT, and it is a virtual library with connectivity 

to State DOTs and their libraries and universities around the country, and we are developing a broader effort known as the Transportation, National Transportation Knowledge Network, to as much as 

possible maximize that connectivity. 

So we are moving very aggressively down this road of finding 

databases around the country that are relevant to transportation 

decision making, making sure that the widest range of stakeholders has access to them, and we want to continue to build on 

that. We feel that these are very highly-leveraged dollars. In other 

words the investment we make in setting up frameworks for this 

kind of communication has a very high payoff because we are providing access to information that essentially already exists and can 

be much more applicable when you provide better access to it. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Appel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 

Fleischmann, for five minutes. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Wu. Panel, thank you very much for being here this morning. This 

is very important to me. This morning I found out that I am going 

to be serving on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

in addition to this Committee and very excited about that. In addition to that, ORNL, the lab, is in my district, third district in Tennessee, and I know they do a lot of research. 

I am trying to get a handle on, and I want to hear from all of 

you all about this. What do you think is—and it is a two-part question, the highest value of research activity that you all do or that 

DOT does, what is the best and in the event that we have to cut, 

which is likely, what should be cut and why? 

So I would like to know what you all think the best is and where 

you think if we have to cut, what should go and why? And Mr. 

Appel, I will start with you, sir. 

Mr. APPEL. That question would take a lot of thought. We have— 

I mentioned earlier in my testimony that we have 14 what are 

known as research clusters, basically different scientific disciplines 

of research that all contribute to the overall research efforts, and 

so for example, a couple of the clusters involve human factors like 

lifting the effect of fatigue on either a truck driver or a pilot of an 

aircraft. So that is a human factors cluster. 
60 

Or there might be—there is a cluster more towards infrastructure, which looks at getting better pavement in a roadway that is 

going to last longer or provide a safer environment. It is actually 

very difficult to compare the results of the research in something 

like human factors or pavement design because they come at transportation from very different angles, and they both contribute to 

safety. We are not—we try not to be in a position of ranking one 

versus the other. What we try to do is look at the resources we 

have in each area and make the best possible use of those dollars 

to drive the best human factors work, the best infrastructure work, 

the best structure work, and the like. 

So I am not in a position right now to pick one program that is 

the best or one program that could go. I would just say that within 

each scientific discipline we try to prioritize to show high-impact 

work within that discipline. 

But you mentioned Oak Ridge National Lab. I just want to take 

a quick opportunity to thank the people of your district for Patricia 

Hu, who is our new director of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which is part of RITA, she served on the team at Oak Ridge 

National Lab for close to 30 years, and we recruited her last year, 

and she is now leading our national transportation statistics efforts, and we know that she was a loss to Oak Ridge National Lab, 

she is a tremendous gain for DOT, and we appreciate it. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HALIKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I assume I am next in line for 

that question. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fleischmann, I am going to give 

you an answer that I think folks who are looking for a definite yes 

or no probably dislike, and that answer is they are all important 

because about a little over a year ago I became Chair of the Standing Committee of Research for AASHTO, and when I looked at the 

picture, it is complex, and it is diverse of the types of research that 

are done for transportation, but there is a reason for that. 

The research takes place at many different levels, whether it be 

local, State, or federal, and as we see we have got research that 

these panelists have talked about on technology transfer. There is 

particular research that may be conducted by the U.S. DOT. You 

have various agencies within the DOT with transit, highways, safety, motor carrier safety, railroad, and innovative technology. 

So it is very difficult to give you a definite answer. To say which 

one of those are the most important depending on where you are 

standing at any particular time it may be very important. 

In response to your second question as to which of those I would 

cut, again, my answer would be since they are all important, I 

don’t think any of them should be cut. You might want to look at 

perhaps some sort of—if you are going to do a reduction, something 

more proportional along those lines, but to pick a particular one 

out to cut out of the program I think is very difficult to do because 

this research system is very intertwined. 

Mr. FLEISHMANN. Thank you. Mr. Gehr. 

Mr. GEHR. Yes, Mr. Fleischmann. Kind of like the previous 

speaker let me hit your second question first, and I will go back 

to Mr. Wu’s question earlier of all of us about how much is spent 

in research in other areas, and while we are not in a position to 

know what that is, I would tell you that if—and I will take Mr. 
61 

Wu’s word that it is one percent of the Federal Transportation Bill 

spent on research, I will also say that about one percent of our 

GDP is invested in transportation in this country. 

And while I would not suggest we cut that one percent, in fact, 

it should be increased, I would not suggest that we cut the one percent of our federal transportation dollars that are going to research 

because they are all important. 

Some of the more important areas, you know, as I mentioned, the 

Long-Term Bridge Performance Program, which is a long-term, 20- 

year program, needs to keep moving forward. Bridges are critical 

elements of our transportation system, whether it is for highways 

or transit or rail. All of those systems have bridges associated with 

them, and all it takes is for one bridge to go out, and you have lost 

an entire system. So that should continue as a very critical element. 

The Intelligent Transportation System Program, again, is another long-term investment looking to the future to make the 

more—most effective and efficient use of the systems that we have, 

and that is what technology does for us. We have to look beyond 

the short term to do that. We have to look at the very, very long 

term, and the federal labs such as ORNL and some of the others 

working on concert with the State DOTs, the Federal Government, 

and even those of us in the private sector are looking at those 

kinds of issues, and so they, too, should continue and not be cut. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. I think my time is up, isn’t it, Mr. Chairman, 

or——— 

Chairman QUAYLE. Your time has expired, Mr. Fleischmann. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Yes, sir. Thank you all. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Fleischmann. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 

Cravaack, for five minutes. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate you allowing 

me to be here a little bit late. Sorry. I was in another committee, 

so may apologies to the panel. 

Ms. Peterson, thank you very much for being here, and I just 

have a couple questions. Very interesting in my district is the mileage charge, and could you kind of tell me how much it would cost 

to actually implement a program such as that? I live in a very 

rural community. Going to the grocery store might be an hour 

event, so if you could comment on that, I sure would appreciate it. 

Ms. PETERSON. Chairman Cravaack, the—Oregon has been looking at this in very small steps towards a vehicle miles-based utility 

fee. We started with two very small communities in Oregon and 

looked at the effectiveness of it and how it would be implemented. 

I think the question that you have raised is the question that our 

legislature has raised. I think that what we have done is we have 

looked to two more small steps. One is to in this legislative session 

that ends in a couple of weeks, one is to charge electric vehicle 

users a VMT because right now they are not paying anything, so 

the legislature is still mulling over how that would work, and it 

wouldn’t have been implemented if passed until 2017. 

So because of those questions that you raised and others that 

have been raised around privacy, how do you actually implement 
62 

a system where people’s information is protected. So we are working towards the answers to those questions. 

The other issue specifically on costs for the entire system was 

something that was going to be looked at in the five years between 

now and implementation. 

The second part of the proposal was to do an opt-in, a voluntary 

opt-in, whether you are electric or a gas-powered vehicle, and the 

rate that they were talking about charging that would be equivalent to a gas tax was about $1.60 per—I am sorry. One point six 

cents and that was too high in the estimation of the electric vehicle 

folks in terms of getting an incentive over the next five years to 

get those vehicles out on the road. So we were looking at having 

that and then bringing it up over time. 

So that is where it is right now. It is still in conversation. I think 

what we are going to end up with is an all-voluntary opt-in, second-stage program. But in the rural communities I highly doubt we 

would get any voluntary opt-in. I think this is more geared at this 

point towards the urban areas. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Okay, and just to—make sure I understand, you 

really don’t know what your initial upfront costs will be for the 

capital investment? 

Ms. PETERSON. No, because I think what they would do once 

given permission from the legislature is go out for an RFP. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Okay. All right. 

Could I get just some other comments from the panel on what 

your feelings are in regards to a mileage tax versus how we currently tax right now and what moving forward, obviously we have 

to take care of our infrastructure. It is vital we take care of our 

infrastructure, but can you give us some comments on what you 

are feelings are regarding mileage-based tax and how it can be— 

actually be implemented. 

Mr. APPEL. From the research and technology perspective at U.S. 

DOT we come at it from a perspective of if we look at intelligent 

transportation systems infrastructure that will help relieve congestion, help improve safety, we want to ensure that any investments 

we make in technology provide the maximum flexibility for different financing systems moving forward. 

So from the research perspective I don’t want to weigh in specifically on what form of financing is the best versus another, but 

what I do want to say is that we want to look at technologies that 

are as accommodating as possible to whatever the future environment would look like, and one great thing about intelligent transportation system investment is the benefits can really extend to future frameworks that we might not even anticipate today. If we put 

in a good infrastructure that involves good communication between 

vehicles and infrastructure, it can accommodate lots of ways of 

doing business in the future. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. With that said, can you ensure the privacy of the 

U.S. citizen at the same time? 

Mr. APPEL. We think that is a fundamental priority of any intelligent transportation system. If an intelligent transportation system technology is about safety and efficiency and environmental 

sustainability and good finance and techniques, it requires the buyin from the users, from the people, and in order to get that buy- 
63 

in we need to absolutely ensure privacy. So that will be top of our 

list for any implementation. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you. Appreciate that. 

Mr. HALIKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, a VMT issue is something that 

I think you have to look at from a national perspective. Certainly 

the technology I think is probably there to do such a system, but 

as you point out, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cravaack, there are many, 

many other questions that go into what you do with the VMT system involving the number of miles traveled in less populated areas, 

privacy, all of those issues. 

However, having said that, the other fundamental question we 

face, of course, is does gasoline tax as a method of funding transportation continue to be the workhorse it was since the 1950s, and 

the answer to that is obviously with an 18.4 cent a gallon federal 

gasoline tax, fuel, economy, and inflation continues to erode that. 

Whether it is VMT or some other solution, there is a funding gap 

that has to be addressed. All of them have difficult questions surrounding them. 

Mr. GEHR. Mr. Cravaack, I would agree. I have been in transportation for 40 years in this country. We have been talking about the 

death of the gas tax for most of that time. When that comes, I don’t 

know, but it still has to be part of the mix. 

But at the same time, you know, through the research that we 

are talking about today, we need to investigate all other options 

available to us, you know, for augmenting revenues for transportation. VMT is one, and yes, the technology is there, it can be done, 

but as in many of these it is more the institutional issues on, you 

know, how you collect it, how you distribute the revenues, and the 

privacy issues, and those sorts of things that become more and 

more difficult or more difficult than the technology aspects. 

So it is VMT that we are talking about today, and it may be 

something else tomorrow, but all of those other issues need to be 

dealt with as they are moving forward. 

Ms. PETERSON. I would just add that Oregon was the first State 

in the union to have a gas tax, so the fact that we are looking to 

move away from it, I mean, it shows you the difficulties in transportation as a utility model. We just don’t have it set up, and so 

as resources get tight, you know, with federal government aid, just 

like sewer and water we need to figure out how do we provide the 

infrastructure as a utility. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Well, thank you very much, and thank you for 

the indulgence, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Cravaack. 

I would like to thank the witnesses today for their valuable testimony and to the Members for their questions. The Members of the 

Subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses, 

and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. The record will 

remain open for two weeks for additional comments from Members. 

The witnesses are excused, and this hearing is adjourned. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(65) 

Appendix I: 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
66 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Honorable Peter Appel, Administrator, Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation 

Questions submitted by Chairman Ben Quayle 

Q1. You mentioned in your testimony that one of the Administration’s goals is to 

‘‘simplify the existing surface transportation research program.’’ Could you 

elaborate on what this means? Please provide details. 

A1. As detailed in the Department’s technical assistance provided to the Committee, 

the Administration seeks to maximize the effective use of scarce surface transportation research resources by eliminating the multiple earmarks, designations and 

funding categories as found in Title V of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA–LU). As has been often 

shown, the over-designation of Title V resources within SAFETEA–LU’s multiple 

programs has severely limited the Department’s ability to apply resources where 

they are most needed to address the most urgent national transportation research 

needs. 

In addition to pursuing the research principles I noted in my testimony, the Department specifically seeks to: 

• Authorize the Secretary to develop and implement incentives to accelerate 

multimodal deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies 

and research results flowing from the ITS Research Program, and to enhance 

transportation investments and the return on those investments. 

• Focus the Federal role by restructuring the highway research and technology 

development and deployment program activities in the following core areas: 

1. Improving highway safety, 

2. Improving infrastructure integrity, 

3. Strengthening transportation planning and environmental linkages, 

4. Reducing congestion, improving highway operations, and enhancing freight 

productivity, 

5. Assessing policy and system financing alternatives, and 

6. Exploring next generation solutions, capitalizing on the Turner-Fairbank 

Highway Research Center, aligning national challenges, and disseminating 

information. 

• Authorize a highway technology and innovation deployment program to test, 

evaluate, and accelerate the delivery and deployment of technologies ready to 

be implemented or in the last stages of development. 

• Focus the transit research program on nationally significant research, development, demonstration, deployment and evaluation projects that the Secretary determines will improve public transportation. 

• Enable cooperative research and evaluation programs addressing priority highway safety countermeasures. 

• Conduct motor vehicle safety research, development, and testing programs and 

activities, including new and emerging technologies that may impact motor vehicle safety. 

Questions for the Record from Representative Lamar Smith 

Q1. Some competing legislative proposals before the Congress seek to extend the federal weight limit on trucks to 97,000 pounds while equipping the tractor-trailer 

with an additional sixth axle. Such a weight increase and lengthening of tractor-trailers raises several safety concerns, especially with the wear and tear on 

brakes of such trucks and ability of such larger trucks to operate safely on our 

roads with other vehicles. However, larger semi-trucks would generally mean 

fewer trucks on the road, which could also save money in operating a fleet of 

such trucks. 

a. Has the Department of Transportation researched the pros and cons of increasing vehicle weight limits on tractor-trailers? 
67 

b. Has the Department reached any conclusions based on this research about the 

economic benefits and ability of trucks with increased weight limits to operate 

safely? 

A1. On the National Network, which covers approximately 200,000 miles, States 

are required to allow access to commercial motor vehicles (CMV) that have a 48- 

foot trailer or twin 28-foot trailers, and are up to 102 inches wide. On the Interstate 

Highway System, a subset of the National Network, Federal law limits the gross 

vehicle weight of CMVs to 80,000 pounds (there are, however, multiple grandfathered provisions allowing higher weights in various States). There is no Federal 

weight restriction on the rest of the National Network or on State and local roads 

beyond the National Network. 

In some legislative proposals, a 6th axle is proposed to be added to the tractortrailer combination, to form a tridem axle arrangement at the rear of the trailer. 

The Department of Transportation researched the potential impacts of changing 

truck size and weight in the 2000 Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight (CTSW) 

Study, and has recently done additional analysis on pavements. The CTSW study 

examined impacts on pavement, bridges, roadway geometry, safety, traffic operations, rail freight, shipper costs and vehicle miles traveled for several scenarios. 

The 97,000-pound 6-axle tractor semitrailer was one of the configurations analyzed 

in the international scenario (see Figure 1). This scenario allowed up to 51,000 

pounds on a tridem axle group for a 4-axle short wheel base truck, an 8-axle double 

trailer truck and the 6-axle tractor semitrailer. Regarding pavement impact, followup analyses related to pavements found that tridem axles do not result in more 

pavement damage than tandems. However, the loading of the trailer is critical. If 

the trailer is evenly loaded with the additional weight, it results in the load on the 

forward tandem being greater than the 34,000 pounds currently allowed and less 

than 51,000 pounds on the rear tridem. This overload on the forward tandem axles 

will cause additional pavement damage. 

Regarding bridge impact, a 6-axle 53-foot tractor semitrailer configuration would 

not meet the current Federal Bridge Formula B (BFB) and would not be allowed 

to operate on the Interstate system. To remain within the requirements of the BFB, 

the trailer would need to be lengthened to 59 feet and the rear tridem spread to 

20 feet (see Figure 2). Even though this extended configuration would conform to 

the BFB, the configuration would increase the stresses on most bridges by up to 15 

percent more than the stresses produced by the currently legal 80,000-pound 5-axle 

tractor semitrailer. Additionally, due to the spacing of the tridem axles the tires 

would scrub and chaff, causing the vehicle to handle very poorly in turns. A 59-foot 

trailer would also present safety and roadway geometry challenges, as the turning 

radius for this configuration would be increased compared to a current 53-foot trailer and would require a change to current law to amend the length restrictions in 

almost all States. 
68 

Based on current research, the Department has not reached final conclusions concerning the ability of trucks with increased weight limits to operate safely. However, 

the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have found that loading additional weight within existing trailer dimensions raises the center of gravity, increases rollover propensity and reduces vehicle 

stability and control. There are significant safety concerns when a used tandem rear 

axle trailer is modified to a 3-axle trailer (by addition of an axle), as the trailer may 

not be structurally sufficient to withstand the added stresses placed on the frame 

and body when turning and braking due to the added 17,000 pounds (approximately 

20 percent) of weight. 

The commercial truck roadside inspection vehicle Out-of-Service rate for trucks for 

2010 was 20.3 percent, meaning that over 1 in 5 trucks inspected were placed Out- 
69 

of Service for vehicle-related safety deficiencies. Raising the Federal weight limits 

on trucks will not improve the safety of the motoring public without commensurate 

increases in commercial truck safety enforcement programs. 

From a fleet perspective, versus that of an individual truck, allowing higher productivity trucks will result in less fuel consumption, emissions reduction, and fewer 

trucks on the road for a given tonnage of freight. Balancing these economic benefits 

with safety and infrastructure preservation concerns is the challenge in adjusting 

CMV weight limits. 

Questions submitted by Representative Randy Neugebauer 

Q1. Secretary LaHood recently decided to discontinue funding in FY 2011 for University Transportation Research Centers (UTC) and make the program completely competitively-funded. I believe competition is a good thing, and is a driving force behind the innovation and prosperity our country has always enjoyed. 

I understand that UTC’s structure may be reworked in the next surface transportation authorization bill, on which the Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee is working tirelessly. Since this issue may come up again, I’m interested in knowing how the Department of Transportation proposes to ensure continuity and stability of transportation research during the transition period to 

implement Secretary LaHood’s decision. How do you plan to make sure of that? 

Additionally, how can you make certain that current research initiatives will not 

be disrupted as a result of the changes? 

A1. The FY 2011 UTC competition is a primary vehicle for ensuring the continuity 

and stability of transportation research during the transition period. In light of the 

determination that a project or activity received sufficient funds to carry out the 

purpose for which the project or activity was authorized, the Secretary is using program funds to continue the competitive component of the UTC Program per 

SAFETEA–LU Sections 5506(e) and (f) to ensure that a strong cadre of universitybased transportation research and education programs receive funding. At the same 

time, RITA continues its work with existing UTCs during their grant closeout periods. This will ensure that ongoing research projects are completed and that existing 

UTCs can meet the commitments they have made to graduate-level students working towards advanced degrees in transportation. 

Relative to the upcoming UTC competition, RITA formed a multi-modal task 

group which includes the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Maritime Administration (MARAD), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and the Office of the Secretary (OST). The 

group was charged with developing priority research areas, based upon U.S. DOT 

strategic goals, for the UTC Program Request for Proposals (RFP) that was published on Grants.gov on July 26, 2011. 

Q2. An important aspect of maximizing return on investment in research and development is identifying and addressing duplicative programs. How does the Department of Transportation identify redundancies? Can you assure us that they 

will be addressed properly? Since other agencies conduct similar transportationrelated research, could you explain how DOT coordinates with other offices to 

leverage resources and eliminate duplicative efforts? 

A2. The Department coordinates research in a variety of ways—internally, across 

the Administration and with stakeholders. Through the Research, Development & 

Technology (RD&T) Planning Council and RD&T Planning Team, the Department 

addresses critical research areas and ensures that RD&T resources are invested 

wisely to achieve measurable improvements in our Nation’s transportation system. 

The RD&T Planning Council is composed of the heads of the operating administrations, and other senior DOT leaders. It works to ensure coordination at the highest levels of the Department. The RD&T Planning Team is comprised of each operating administrations’ Associate Administrators for RD&T. Through monthly meetings the Planning Team is aware of each other’s RD&T activities and can identify 

additional opportunities for coordination and collaboration. The RITA Administrator 

chairs the Planning Council and RITA’s Associate Administrator for RD&T chairs 

the Planning Team. Working together, these two entities create an environment of 

cross-modal planning and collaboration of Departmental RD&T. This collaborative 

environment identifies, addresses redundancies, and adds significant value as research leaders come together and learn from one another. 
70 

In addition, U.S. DOT engages in cooperative and joint research with stakeholders 

and partners across the transportation sector, including other Federal agencies, 

State and local agencies, academia, industry, and not-for-profit institutions, including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and the American Public 

Transportation Association (APTA). 

During the past year and working closely with the Planning Team, RITA formed 

14 Research Clusters. These clusters were departmentally-funded and composed of 

U.S. DOT elements and stakeholder researchers which facilitated information sharing and research collaboration at a working level. A key component of the effort is 

a social media portal http://www.transportationresearch.gov/dotrc/default.aspx, 

which is fostering cross-cutting, multi-modal collaborations among RD&T stakeholders, both inside and outside of the Department. Furthermore, RITA convenes 

bimonthly, DOT-only meetings of these clusters to improve information sharing and 

collaboration within the Department. 

RITA actively works to move transportation research and technologies into the 

marketplace. When making research grants, RITA requires all of its grantees to 

submit research in progress and final research reports to TRB’s Transportation Research International Documentation (TRID) database and the Research in Progress 

(RiP) database, both of which are publicly searchable. TRID, which contains published research reports, is the world’s largest and most comprehensive bibliographic 

resource on transportation information. RiP contains abstracts of transportation research in progress, and allows researchers and other users to search for proposed 

research ideas in order to foster collaboration and reduce duplicative research 

projects. RITA uses the TRID and RiP databases to serve as a repository for all research conducted by the UTC and Advanced Research Programs, including final 

peer-reviewed research reports and research that is in progress. RITA also encourages other modes to do the same. 

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski 

Q1. Could you elaborate on the recently initiated Transportation Technology Transfer program at the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)? 

How does this program enhance DOT’s ability to identify and support technology 

transfer or product commercialization of University Research Centers? Is there 

a need for a single transfer technology coordinator to unify DOT’s diverse efforts 

across the modes? 

A1. RITA initiated and is now leading U.S. DOT’s technology transfer efforts in 

support of its mission, the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000 (42 

U.S.C. 7261(c), and the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 

U.S.C. 3701 et seq.). RITA is actively involved in technology transfer activities within and outside the Department, a few examples are: 

• Initiating the transfer of research into application; 

• Engaging the DOT laboratory representatives in discussions about establishing 

an intra-DOT working group to refine the technology evaluation process; 

• Leading webinars for Departmental researchers to share their results widely; 

and 

• Involvement of RITA’s Office of Chief Counsel (OCC) on intellectual property 

issues. (DOT Order 1100.75A, September 30, 2008, specifically identifies that 

the OCC ‘‘provides legal advice to the RITA Administrator and provides a comprehensive program of legal services to RITA and intellectual property legal 

services to the U.S. Department of Transportation.’’) 

Also, RITA works with other Federal agencies on technology transfer activities. 

RITA’s roles include being U.S. DOT’s representative in the Federal Laboratory 

Consortium for Technology Transfer and an active participant in the Inter-agency 

Working Group on Technology Transfer, which is chaired by the Department of 

Commerce. Through these efforts and others, RITA is finding ways to leverage technology transfer practices from other Federal agencies to the Department. 

Within U.S. DOT, RITA works closely with other operating administrations in 

support of university research centers. RITA organizes events for university researchers to demonstrate their work, particularly the work that has been deployed 

or is in the final stages of deployment. 

Recently, at U.S. DOT, RITA hosted an event at which over 85 university researchers from 25 different universities demonstrated their deployed technologies 
71 

through exhibits and presentations. The event’s theme was Technology Transfer and 

the presentations highlighted the deployment process. 

Further, universities must inform the Department of potential inventions developed from Federal funding by submitting invention disclosures. This is a mechanism 

by which U.S. DOT tracks technology transfer activities of Federally-funded research to ensure that the appropriate ‘‘interest’’ language is included with provisional or full patent applications. Interest language clearly identifies that the Department has an interest in the invention and that ‘‘the Federal agency shall have 

a nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid up license to practice or have 

practiced for or on behalf of the United States any subject invention throughout the 

world.’’ 35 U.S.C. § 209(d) 

The Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (P.L. 

108–426, 118 Stat. 243, November 30, 2004) specifically grants powers and duties 

to RITA, powers and duties as prescribed by the Secretary for ‘‘coordination, facilitation and review of the Department’s research and development programs and activities’’ [The Mineta Act, § 4(a)(2), Powers and Duties of the Administrator]. Part of 

RITA’s mission is to coordinate and foster research activities across all DOT modes, 

thus the modes are inherently RITA’s internal stakeholders. These stakeholders 

play major roles in the diverse areas of the Department’s research, and regardless 

of technology-transfer application, the technology transfer process will be similar. 

There are multiple means that RITA uses to effect technology transfer coordination 

with the modes; a technology transfer coordinator dedicated to improving the Department’s technology transfer and commercialization results is one of those means. 
72 

1http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/general/spr/staterd.cfm 

Responses by Mr. John Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation; 

Chair, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Standing Committee on Research 

Questions submitted by Chairman Ben Quayle 

Q1. According to your testimony AASHTO recommends the maintenance of the State 

Planning and Research Program in its current, formula-based configuration 

with a 25 percent minimum set aside for research, development, and technology 

transfer activities. What do you think the federal investment in research should 

be as a percentage of all highway programs? 

A1. Currently, less than 1% of the federal-aid highway program is spent on highway research by the Federal Highway Administration and the 50 states through 

their federally funded state planning and research program. Supplemented with significant additional funds from state, local, and private funding sources, the US 

transportation research program has been and will continue to be efficient and effective in providing us with solutions and advancing the technical knowledge needed 

to keep our system running smoothly. The State DOTs rely heavily on research that 

leads to practical solutions to their most challenging problems, and it is critical to 

ensure that the discoveries made through this research are communicated and 

transferred into practice. 

As mentioned in the question, SAFETEA-LU requires that States set aside 2 percent of the apportionments they receive from the Interstate Maintenance, National 

Highway System, Surface Transportation, Highway Bridge, Congestion Mitigation 

and Air Quality Improvement, and Equity Bonus programs for State planning and 

research activities. Of this amount, States must allocate 25 percent for research, development, and technology. These activities involve research on new areas of knowledge; adapting findings to practical applications by developing new technologies; and 

the transfer of these technologies, including dissemination, demonstration, training, 

and adoption of innovations by users. 

The current funding formula allows the transportation research program to ebb 

and flow with the size of the overall transportation program. While there is not 

enough funding for transportation in general to make needed improvements to our 

system, the proportion of research funding to overall funding has worked well in the 

past and we feel it will continue to allow for reasonable research and implementation efforts. 

Q2. Many of the witnesses mention that most states have instituted some type of performance management process, but these are not standardized. Does the Federal 

DOT require any performance measurements or evaluation when states applying 

for or after they receive research funding? What would states need to help standardize this process? 

A2. Currently, one of the requirements for using State Planning and Research 

(SP&R) funds is that the State DOT must develop its own unique management 

plan. This management plan establishes a process for conducting its research and 

technology (R&T) program. The processes that State DOTs use to manage their research programs vary based on such factors as the size and complexity of the program. Procedures also vary from State to State for developing the management plan 

and selecting needed research projects. Most States work with universities and 

other stakeholders as part of their research program. 

Although States tailor their management processes to fit their individual needs, 

FHWA 1 has established minimum requirements for this process. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Division Administrator certifies the State’s management plan before it is implemented. The proposed use of planning and research 

funds must be documented by the State DOTs and any subrecipients of the funding 

in a work program that is acceptable to FHWA. Title 23, CFR Section 420.207, 

states that a State DOT’s research, development, and technology (RD&T) work program must, at a minimum, consist of a description of the RD&T activities to be accomplished during the program period, estimated costs for each eligible activity, and 

a description of any cooperative activities, including the State DOT’s participation 

in any transportation pooled fund studies, technology transfer activities, and the 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). During the development of the work program, States are required to search the Transportation Re-
73 

search Board’s (TRB) Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) database 

to ensure that another State is not already conducting the planned research. 

In addition to these current requirements, the state DOTs, through AASHTO, 

have also identified a number of areas where coordinated, collaborative strategic 

policy research is needed. These areas include such traditional engineering-related 

topics as safety, preservation, and project delivery, but also performance management to ensure that we manage our systems as efficiently and effectively as possible. Performance goals are different from state to state based on the goals each 

is trying to achieve, the research they are conducting, the gaps in knowledge they 

need to fill to advance their particular programs, etc. At the national level, performance measures must be general enough to encompass the wide variety in programs 

and goals across the country. Thus, standardizing each state’s process so that it becomes one-size-fits-all will not be as effective as if each state develops its own processes to meet its own needs. 
74 

Responses by Mr. David Gehr, Senior Vice President, Highway Market, 

Parsons Brinckerhoff; Chairman, American Society of Civil Engineers 

Transportation Policy Committee 

Questions submitted by Chairman Ben Quayle 

Q1. In your opinion is the current UTC system overly focused on applied research 

in order to meet the needs of the state, instead of long-term national goals to 

create transformation technologies? Besides increasing the federal cost share, 

what other policy changes might allow the research conducted by the UTCs to 

be more focused on long-term national needs instead of immediate ones? What 

other recommendations do you have to ensure the UTCs are conducting research 

for the greatest benefit? 

A1. ASCE is concerned that the current UTC program is overly focused on applied 

research, which while meeting the needs of states, does not properly address the 

long-term, high risk research that will create transformational technologies and 

push forward the nation’s surface transportation system. Much of the technology 

necessary for a future surface transportation system already exists, however UTCs 

can properly apply that technology for the greatest benefit of the nation. Universities work well in high risk, long term research, which is why new legislation 

should emphasize their role and ensure that the best universities are selected 

through a competitive process. 

Competition will need to be the key component required to have UTC’s perform 

the long-term advanced research. The program needs to be competitive in order to 

award approximately forty UTCs through the research title and five to ten through 

the transit title. Additionally, the different types of UTCs should be eliminated, in 

order to allow all UTCs in the research title to fall into the same ‘‘tier’’ and therefore receive the same level of funding. The funding should amount to approximately 

$2 million per center annually. This would provide enough critical funding for each 

center to develop significant, long-term research projects, rather than projects that 

only last one year. 

Additionally, in order to have UTC’s do more collaborative research that is advanced in nature, the silos that exist in transportation research should be broken 

down, to expand the allowance for federal funds to match UTC federal funding. In 

SAFETEA–LU, State Planning and Research funds that go to state departments of 

transportation are allowed to match federal UTC funding, as is funding that goes 

to the states to support the Local Technical Assistance Program. In the upcoming 

authorization bill these funds should not be allowed to match federal UTC funding, 

but federal funds from other cabinet level agencies, for instance the Department of 

Energy or Department of Commerce, should be allowed to match federal UTC funding. This will encourage expanded, multi-disciplinary, advanced research. 

Q2. Many of the witnesses mentioned that most states have instituted some type of 

performance management process, but they are not standardized. Does the Federal DOT require any performance measurements or evaluation when states applying for or after they receive research funding? What would states need to help 

standardize this process? 

A2. ASCE is not familiar with the Federal DOT process for performance measurements or evaluations. In general, ASCE is broadly supportive of the inclusion of performance measurements, as it is a critical part of good governance, however the organization does not have a policy on the matter. Setting certain measurements and 

requiring evaluations to take place over the course of a research program allows for 

the government to guarantee that funding is being properly utilized. This level of 

transparency should be essential to any government program. It should be noted 

however, that measurements and evaluations during the course of research should 

not create an undue burden on research facilities, to the point that research results 

would be delayed. The federal government should use caution in developing performance measurements that could become another ‘‘unfunded Federal mandate’’ on 

the states. The measures should also have a degree of flexibility to allow for the 

measurement to be tailored to the research being performed and not a standard one 

size fits all type of approach. 
75 

Responses by Dr. Irwin Feller, Professor Emeritus of Economics, 

Pennsylvania State University; Senior Visiting Fellow, American 

Association for the Advancement of Science 

Questions submitted by Chairman Ben Quayle 

Q1. In your testimony you remark that is it difficult to evaluate the value of transportation research because there is very little evidence to make a convincing case 

for its value. Can you explain what it would take to increase the evidence base? 

A1. Prefacing my answer to the question, ‘‘Can you explain what it would take to 

increase the evidence base (on the value of transportation research)?, is again the 

qualifier contained in my written testimony that I have not conducted an extended 

literature review, and that there may be studies on the value of transportation research with which I am not familiar. More generally though, basing my answer on 

experiences with what has underlain evidence-based studies from other Federal 

agencies, I see 1 short-term and 1 long-term approach as offering a productive, complementary means of generating the desired evidence. 

The short-term approach is to organize a more extensive and systematic review 

of the evidence on the value of transportation research than I am currently able to 

provide and to compare and contrast the methodologies and data bases found in this 

review with the state-of-practice currently employed by other Federal agencies. I 

have participated in or consulted similar such efforts for NIH, NSF, DOE, USDA, 

and NIST, and see few obstacles for conducting such an exercise for DOT. One 

standard approach would be for RITA to contract for such a literature review. Far 

preferable in my view would be to follow the practice of other Federal agencies and 

have RITA contract with the National Academies for such a workshop. 

The longer term approach is for RITA to develop an evaluation program element 

specifically designed at providing systematic evidence of the value of transportation 

research. Here the preferred approach in my view would be to couple a strengthening of RITA’s internal evaluation capabilities with allocating via a competitive 

process some portion of UTC funds to those centers that develop a specialized capacity for program/project evaluation. 

Q2. In your opinion, is the current UTC system overly focused on applied research 

in order to meet the needs of the states, instead of long-term national goals to 

create transformational technologies? Besides increasing the federal cost share, 

what other policy changes might allow the research conducted by the UTCs to 

be more focused on long-term national needs instead of immediate ones? What 

other recommendations do you have to ensure the UTCs are conducting research 

for the greatest benefit of the nation? 

A2. My earlier testimony that the UTC system is overly focused on applied research 

in order to meet the needs of the states, based in large part on review of written 

TRB reports and interaction with transportation practitioners during my service on 

the RTCC, has been reinforced by my subsequent interactions with UTC administrators, who have confirmed and detailed this assessment. Increasing the federal 

cost share is only part of what needs to be done to have the UTCs direct their activities at national goals to creative transformational technologies. Indeed, without additional policies/requirements, simply increasing the federal share may allow states 

to further leverage their modest investments to shape local rather than national research objectives. 

Two additional, complementary steps, at a minimum are required to guide the 

UTCs to national objectives. First, UTC awards should be based on competitive, 

merit-review processes with proposals evaluated on the basis of their potential to 

achieve stated national transportation research objectives. Thus, following a consultative process involving stakeholders, members of the transportation research community, and researchers in cognate fields (e.g., materials research), DOT should 

identify and prioritize a set of national transportation research needs, allowing room 

for blue sky initiatives, towards which existing UTCs can respond. Selection panels 

likewise should be constructed broadly of individuals qualified to judge the national 

potential of the proposals under review. The second step is to establish formal review criteria to assess performance under an award, with substantive penalties, including termination, for non-performance, and to construct review panels broadly 

representative of the user and performer communities. 
76 

Responses by Ms. Lynn Peterson, Transportation Policy Advisor, 

Office of Governor John Kitzhaber (OR) 
77 

(79) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
80 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

Statement Submitted by Representative Randy Neugebauer 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this Technology and Innovation Subcommittee hearing on transportation research priorities. In a time that calls for severe fiscal restraints and strict consideration of all federally funded programs, 

prioritizing projects and maximizing return on investment is more important than 

ever. American families are being forced to stretch each and every dollar as far as 

they can, and the federal government should be doing the same. As such, I believe 

that this hearing is timely, I expect that we will hear important ideas on how we 

can improve the effectiveness of our transportation research investments, as well as 

how programs are currently undergoing efforts to make the most out of the funding 

they receive. 

Administrator Appel: Secretary LaHood recently decided to discontinue funding in 

FY 2011 for University Transportation Research Centers (UTC) and make the program completely competitively-funded. I believe competition is a good thing, and is 

a driving force behind the innovation and prosperity our country has always enjoyed. I understand that UTC’s structure may be reworked in the next surface 

transportation authorization bill, on which the Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee is working tirelessly. Since this issue may come up again, I’m interested 

in knowing how the Department of Transportation proposes to ensure continuity 

and stability of transportation research during the transition period to implement 

Secretary LaHood’s decision. How do you plan to make sure of that? Additionally, 

how can you make certain that current research initiatives will not be disrupted as 

a result of the change? 

An important aspect of maximizing return on investment in research and development is identifying and addressing duplicative programs. How does the Department 

of Transportation identify redundancies? Can you assure us that they will be addressed properly? Since other agencies conducted similar transportation-related research, could you explain how DOT coordinates with other offices to leverage and 

eliminate duplicative efforts? 

Thank you. 

Æ