Highway Research: The Second Strategic Highway Research Program Addresses the Four Required Areas, but Some Anticipated Research Was Not Funded
Published: 2010-02-05T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users authorized the Department of Transportation to establish a highway research program to address future challenges facing the U.S. highway system. In 2006, the Second Strategic Highway Research Program was established to conduct research in four areas--safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity. The Transportation Research Board manages this program in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration and others. The legislation also required GAO to review the program no later than 3 years after the first research contracts were awarded. This report provides information about the process for selecting the program's projects for funding, the projects' status, and what, if any, research was eliminated because of funding and time constraints. To address our objectives, GAO reviewed the program's authorizing legislation, analyzed studies and reports related to the program and its projects, and interviewed officials from relevant transportation agencies and organizations. GAO is not making recommendations in this report. The Department of Transportation and the Transportation Research Board reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated, as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The program's oversight committee funded research projects based on the recommendations of its four technical coordinating committees of experts (one for each of the four research areas), which considered the input of other experts and factors, such as available program funds and time frames. Prior to the program's establishment, detailed research plans were developed by panels of experts in 2003 that identified 106 possible research projects. However, these research plans were significantly modified on two occasions--in 2006, when less funding and time were provided for completing the program than had been assumed in 2003, and in 2008, when about $20 million in additional program funding became available. On both occasions, the program's oversight committee relied on experts to prioritize and recommend projects for funding. As a result of this process, 56 of the 106 projects either evolved into, or were partially merged with, one or more of the currently funded projects, while 50 projects were eliminated entirely. As of December 31, 2009, the program's oversight committee had allocated about $123 million of the approximately $171 million available to fund 85 projects in the four research areas of highway safety (40 percent), renewal (26 percent), reliability (16 percent), and capacity (17 percent). These funding allocations closely followed the overall funding percentages recommended by the Transportation Research Board in 2001. Of the 85 funded projects, 11 were completed, 52 were ongoing, 22 were anticipated, and all of the projects were expected to be completed by 2013. The outcomes are expected to vary by research area, ranging from useful data sets and related analyses to improved technologies, guidelines, and techniques for advancing the goals of each research area. Among other outcomes, the program staff expects: (1) the safety research will produce the largest, most comprehensive database on driver behavior available to date and, thus, provide the foundation for significant improvements in highway safety; (2) the renewal research will produce a variety of tools and techniques to promote rapid and durable highway renewal; (3) the reliability research will develop methods to provide highway users with relatively more consistent travel times between locations; and (4) the capacity research will provide strategies for better decision making in highway planning processes to increase the capacity of U.S. highways. Because of funding and time constraints, 50 of the 106 research projects identified in 2003 were eliminated entirely from funding, while many of the remaining 56 projects had one or more portions of their planned research eliminated. Overall, most of the funded projects are for applied research, but many of the implementation-related activities identified in 2003 were eliminated. While activities to (1) translate research results into products, (2) train and disseminate research findings, and (3) provide technical support for implementing the research are often needed to widely implement research results, program staff are hopeful that other researchers will initiate some of the eliminated research activities after the program's completion.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As the United States entered the 21st century, the nation’s highway  infrastructure and transportation system faced critical challenges that  demanded practical solutions. The highway system is the backbone of the  U.S. economy and provides passenger and freight links to all other modes  of transportation. However, the network of U.S. roadways, bridges, and  other related structures constituting the system has been in constant use  for decades, often exceeding original design life and expected traffic  volumes. As a result, the system is deteriorating and has become heavily  congested. For example, the average age of a bridge in the inventory of  bridges nationwide is 35 years, and about a quarter of them are considered  either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Also, increased  traffic congestion causes travel disruptions and delays that, in 2007, cost  travelers about $87 billion and an estimated 4.2 billion additional travel  hours. Furthermore, the number of deaths and injuries each year from  highway accidents—the leading cause of death in 2006 for all persons  between 3 and 34 years of age—constitute a major public health concern.
Research and innovation play an important role in addressing the  challenges of managing and using the highway system. Research efforts  generally focus on incremental improvements that address a wide range of  highway challenges and lead to a variety of user benefits across the  highway system, including (1) lower construction and maintenance costs,  (2) better system performance, (3) added highway capacity, (4) reduced  highway fatalities and injuries, and (5) reduced adverse environmental  impacts. In contrast, strategic highway research programs are designed to  focus on fewer highway challenges and typically result in more rapid and  significant transportation-related improvements.
To address challenges facing the nation’s highway infrastructure and  transportation system and develop potential solutions to those challenges,  in 1998, Congress requested the Transportation Research Board (TRB), a  unit of the National Research Council within the National Academy of  Sciences, to conduct a study for creating a strategic highway research  program. TRB conducted the study and, in 2001, issued Special Report  260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion,  Improving Quality of Life (Special Report 260), which concluded that a  large-scale, special-purpose, and limited-duration research program  focused on four research areas—safety, renewal, reliability, and  capacity—could help the highway system meet customer demands over  the next several decades. To advance such a program, in 2002, the  Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Highway Administration  (FHWA) and the states’ departments of transportation funded work to  develop detailed research plans and specific projects for carrying out each  of the four areas outlined in Special Report 260. The results of this effort  were completed and published in 2003. In addition, section 5210 of the  2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A  Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized the creation of the Future  Strategic Highway Research Program. SAFETEA-LU required that the  program focus on the four research and development areas specified in  Special Report 260 (i.e., highway safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity)  and tasked DOT with establishing and carrying out the program through  the National Research Council. The resulting program, initiated in 2006, is  referred to as the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2).  The program is managed by TRB in cooperation with FHWA, the National  Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the American Association of  State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
SAFETEA-LU directed us to review SHRP 2 no later than 3 years after the  first contracts for research projects were awarded. This occurred on  February 5, 2007. This report provides information about (1) the process  for selecting SHRP 2 projects for funding, (2) the status of these projects,  and (3) what, if any, planned research was eliminated from the program  because of funding and time constraints. To address these issues, we  reviewed the program’s authorizing legislation, requirements, goals, and  objectives. We also reviewed and analyzed literature, studies, and reports  related to SHRP 2, and available agency and program documentation on  the SHRP 2 research projects that were funded or identified for funding in  the 2003 detailed research plans, as well as the revised plans for  reprioritizing project for funding. In addition, we compared the current  SHRP 2 projects with the four research areas identified in Special Report  260 and the projects identified in the 2003 detailed research plans to  identify projects that were partially or fully eliminated from program  funding. Finally, we interviewed officials from DOT, FHWA, the National  Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Research Council,  TRB, and AASHTO.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 through February  2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for more  information about our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Research and innovation play an important role in addressing issues  associated with building, maintaining, operating, and using the U.S.  highway system. Highway research is an essential national investment  because it helps address broad issues related to highway planning, safety,  traffic operations, pavement durability, maintenance, and the impact of the  highway system on the environment. In addition, research helps  transportation professionals to (1) understand how the highway  transportation system functions and (2) anticipate future demands. Past  research has yielded many advances and innovations that have saved  money, improved performance, added capacity, reduced fatalities and  injuries, and minimized the impact of the highway system on the  environment. For example, in the late 1950s, the American Association of  State Highway Officials sponsored research, called the AASHO Road Test,  to study how traffic contributes to the deterioration of highway  pavements. This research, which contributed to the creation of  nationwide design standards for the new Interstate highway system, was  designed to complement existing highway research programs and is  credited with critical advances related to the structural design and  performance of pavements, and to understanding the effects of various  climates on pavements.
While highway research has resulted in transportation advances,  implementing research results can be difficult because of the number of  stakeholders involved. The network of highway transportation  stakeholders is large and complex, consisting of federal and state  transportation agencies, universities, industry associations, and private  organizations. In total, more than 35,000 highly decentralized public  agencies manage the U.S. highway system, and thousands of private  contractors, materials suppliers, and other organizations provide support  services. The federal government supports highway research through  FHWA, whose mission, in part, is to deploy and implement technology and  promote the use of innovative approaches to address highway challenges.  For example, to enhance mobility on U.S. highways, FHWA conducts and  funds research on current and emerging nationwide transportation issues  to, among other matters, enhance the transportation system’s overall  performance; reduce traffic congestion; improve safety; and maintain  infrastructure integrity. However, according to a report issued by TRB in  2001, the majority of FHWA’s highway research focuses on short-term,  incremental transportation-related improvements. Although  transportation agencies are generally responsive to implementing small  innovations with the promise of short-term benefits, according to this  report, it takes considerably longer to implement changes that realize  large, long-term benefits.
Although the establishment of a national strategic highway research  program, like SHRP 2, has been rare, it is not unprecedented. Specifically,  in 1987, Congress established the first Strategic Highway Research  Program (SHRP) to achieve large-scale, accelerated, and innovative  highway research on topics not adequately addressed by prior or existing  research programs. SHRP focused on a few critical infrastructure and  operational problems faced by state transportation agencies, such as the  quality of asphalt used in highway construction, the integrity and longevity  of road pavements, and the deterioration of concrete bridge decks and  other components. The program, concluded in 1991, was considered  ambitious because of its limited duration and its concentration on  previously neglected research areas related to asphalt pavements,  structural concrete, and winter maintenance. Two of the better known and  more widely implemented results of SHRP are (1) the Superpave materials  selection and design system, which resulted in more durable asphalt  pavements, and (2) a collection of methods and technologies that  significantly improved approaches for controlling snow and ice on  roadways.
The success of SHRP prompted Congress and others to take several key  steps that, ultimately, led to the establishment of SHRP 2. Table 1 provides  a timeline of key events related to SHRP 2.
Special Report 260 recommended that the program address the following  four research goals:    safety—to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes through more  accurate knowledge of driver behavior and other crash factors; renewal—to develop a consistent and systematic approach to performing  highway rehabilitation that is rapid, causes minimum disruption, and  produces long-lived (durable) transportation facilities, such as roadways  and bridges;  reliability—to provide highway users with improved travel time reliability  (more consistent travel times between locations) by preventing and  reducing the impact of relatively unpredictable events, such as traffic  accidents, work zones, special events, and weather; and   capacity—to develop approaches and tools for systematically integrating  environmental, economic, and community requirements into the decision- making processes for planning and designing projects to increase highway  capacity.
While Special Report 260 provided strategic direction and a general  framework for developing SHRP 2, additional planning had to be  conducted before the research program could begin. Therefore, in January  2002, TRB assembled five panels—an oversight panel and four technical  panels of experts—to provide leadership and technical guidance for the  development of detailed research plans for each of the four research areas.  The panels consisted of a wide range of highway transportation experts,  including representatives from state departments of transportation,  FHWA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, universities,  industry associations, and private companies.
The planning effort, completed in September 2003, resulted in detailed  research plans for each of the four research areas, which identified, among  other matters, the objectives, scope, and anticipated projects and budgets  for each of the four areas. Each technical panel of experts prioritized the  research projects identified in its area after considering, among other  matters, the (1) probability of each project’s success and (2) likelihood  that each project would improve transportation practices. In total, the four  plans identified 106 projects—15 for safety, 38 for renewal, 33 for  reliability, and 20 for capacity projects—designed to achieve the overall  research goals specified in Special Report 260.
SAFETEA-LU, enacted in 2005, established several requirements for  carrying out SHRP 2. For example, Congress required that the program (1)  address the four research areas described in Special Report 260 as well as  the detailed research plans completed in 2003 and (2) involve state  transportation officials and other stakeholders in the governance of the  research program. SHRP 2 began in December 2005, when FHWA,  AASHTO, and the National Research Council formed a partnership to  carry out SHRP 2 through a memorandum of understanding. In doing so,  these entities specified that TRB should manage the program’s daily  operations and budget and establish a structure for carrying out the  program. Similar to the 2003 detailed planning effort, TRB established the  following organizational structure, composed of experts at all levels, to  carry out SHRP 2:    an oversight committee to approve annual work plans, budgets, and  contractor awards, among other activities;   a technical coordinating committee (TCC) for each of the four research  areas to develop annual research plans and monitor the progress of  contracts, among other matters; and    numerous expert task groups, as needed, to provide technical input to  each of the four research areas, develop the requests for project proposals,  recommend contractor selections, and monitor research projects.
According to SHRP 2 staff, the extensive involvement of experts to define,  prioritize, and oversee research in each of the four areas was intended to  maximize the usefulness of the research results.
Special Report 260, which was requested by Congress, recommended that  SHRP 2 receive $450 million over 6 fiscal years, with 9 years to complete  the research. In 2005, SAFETEA-LU authorized $205 million for SHRP 2  over 4 fiscal years (fiscal years 2006 through 2009). SHRP 2 was officially  inaugurated in March 2006, when FHWA provided about $36 million to  TRB to initiate the program and 7 years to complete the research (i.e., by  2013) through a cooperative agreement with the National Research  Council. However, the initial amount provided for fiscal year 2006  constituted less than one-half of the annual recommended amount in  Special Report 260 ($75 million) and about $15 million less than the annual  amount authorized in SAFETEA-LU ($51.25 million). SAFETEA-LU  contained other funding limitations, which ultimately reduced SHRP 2’s  funding below its authorized amount. The 2008 SAFETEA-LU Technical  Corrections Act provided additional obligation authority for the program,  which resulted in about $20 million in additional funds. TRB currently  expects about $171 million in total SHRP 2 funding. Table 2 provides a  comparison of the (1) funding and duration for SHRP 2 as recommended  in Special Report 260, (2) program funding authorized in SAFETEA-LU,  and (3) amount actually funded.
section_title: SHRP 2 Research Projects Were Selected Based on Expert Input and Program Funding and Time Frames
paragraphs: The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded research projects for the program  based on the recommendations of its TCCs, which considered the input of  other experts and factors such as available program funds and time  frames. These experts included highway transportation personnel from  federal, state, and local government; private sector firms; academia;  AASHTO liaisons; and other stakeholder organizations within the U.S. and  international highway community. While the 2003 detailed research plans  constituted the starting point for decisions about project selections, the  106 projects identified in these plans had to be significantly modified on  two occasions because of program funding and time frames. The first  major modification occurred in 2006, when, as discussed, considerably  less funding and time were provided for the program’s completion than  had been assumed by the parties involved in the development of the  detailed research plans in 2003. The second major modification occurred  in 2008, when about $20 million in additional program funding became  available because of the passage of the SAFETEA-LU Technical  Corrections Act.
On both occasions, the SHRP 2 oversight committee relied on the input of  experts to select projects for funding. Given less funding and time than  had been assumed for completing the program, in 2006, the oversight  committee requested that the parties involved in the 2003 planning effort  reevaluate these plans for the purpose of rescoping the program and  prioritizing projects for funding. In doing so, these parties assigned lower  priority to projects that (1) were duplicative or similar to other research  efforts, (2) could not be accomplished within SHRP 2’s budget or time  frame, or (3) could be deferred. In addition, they rescoped other projects  under consideration for funding. After the four TCCs were formed later in  2006, the oversight committee requested them to review the revised  research plans. As a result of this effort, the TCCs developed  recommendations for project funding in each of the four research areas,  which were approved by the oversight committee in November 2006.
When more funds became available, in 2008, the oversight committee  asked the TCCs to prepare prioritized lists of additional projects for  funding. In doing so, the oversight committee requested the TCCs to assign  higher funding priority to (1) ongoing projects that addressed gaps in  existing research, (2) projects that were demonstrating the most promising  results, and (3) potential projects that advanced SHRP 2’s strategic goals.  This effort resulted in project recommendations for several new projects  and additional funding for some existing projects, which were approved by  the oversight committee in November 2008.
As a result of the reprioritization process, 56 of the 106 projects identified  in 2003 either evolved into, or were partially merged with, one or more of  the currently funded SHRP 2 projects, while 50 of the projects were  eliminated entirely. Table 3 provides information on the number of  projects identified in the 2003 detailed research plans (1) for each research  area; (2) that either evolved into, or were partially merged with, one or  more SHRP 2 funded projects; and (3) that were eliminated entirely from  funding. Appendixes II through V provide more detailed information, by  research area, on how specific projects identified in 2003 were  reprioritized for funding.
section_title: The SHRP 2 Oversight Committee Allocated about $123 Million for 85 Projects: 63 Are Completed or Ongoing and 22 Are Planned
paragraphs: As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated  approximately $123 million (about 72 percent) of the roughly $171 million  available to fund projects related to highway safety, renewal, reliability,  and capacity. Of the 85 projects selected for funding, 11 were completed,  52 were ongoing, and 22 were expected to begin in the future. SHRP 2 staff  expect all of the projects will be completed by 2013. The outcomes of the  projects are expected to vary, ranging from the (1) production of data sets  and related analyses to (2) development of improved technologies,  procedures, guidelines, and techniques for advancing the goals of each of  the four research areas. The oversight committee allocated the remaining  $48 million to fund administrative expenses, publication of research  reports, and contingencies that may arise. Figure 1 illustrates how SHRP 2  how SHRP 2  funding was allocated as of December 31, 2009.  funding was allocated as of December 31, 2009.
Special Report 260 recommended different percentages of funding for  each of the four research areas, ranging from 15 percent to 40 percent of  available funding. As shown in table 4, the oversight committee closely  followed the relative funding distributions recommended in this report.  Table 4 compares the recommended funding levels and percentages in  Special Report 260 with the actual funding levels and percentages.
subsections: section_title: About $49 Million Has Been Allocated for 16 Safety Research Projects; 12 Are Completed or Ongoing and 4 Are Planned
paragraphs: As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated  about $49 million to fund 5 completed, 7 ongoing, and 4 future safety  projects, for a total of 16 projects. The goal of the safety research is “to  prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes through more accurate  knowledge of crash factors and of the cost-effectiveness of selected  countermeasures in addressing these factors.” The SHRP 2 safety TCC  expects that the collection of safety research projects will (1) provide  objective and reliable information on driver performance and behavior and  (2) help assess the risks associated with related crash factors.
The 16 safety projects are part of two overall studies that are expected to  produce a variety of data on driver behavior: the in-vehicle driving study  and the site-based risk study. Most of these projects (15 of 16) and funding  ($48 million of $49 million allocated) relate to the in-vehicle driving study,  also referred to as the SHRP 2 naturalistic driving study. This study  involves the use of cameras, radar, and other sensors installed in the  vehicles of about 3,000 volunteer drivers in six locations for 1 to 2 years.  Collectively, the devices are expected to record (1) real-time video from  multiple angles of each volunteer while driving (e.g., the driver’s face and  interior views of the vehicle) and the driving environment (e.g., road  characteristics and traffic) and (2) information about the vehicle (e.g., the  vehicle’s speed and information on whether the seat belt is being used). In  addition, researchers will record information on roadway conditions, as  well as demographic data and data on other factors that may affect the  drivers’ behavior. Overall, SHRP 2 staff expect this study will result in  objective information on driver behavior that, for the first time, will allow  researchers to determine the relative risk associated with various factors  and circumstances related to the analysis of accidents, near collisions, and  uneventful driving experiences.
The oversight committee allocated the remaining $1 million for a project  related to a site-based risk study. This project includes (1) a study to  develop a portable, semi-automated video system and (2) a pilot field  study, using multiple overhead video cameras, to record the relative  position of traffic moving through selected locations to advance the  understanding of driver behavior. While the intent of the naturalistic  driving study is to passively observe individual drivers, the site-based  study will allow researchers to observe multiple drivers at selected  locations. SHRP 2 staff expect the project will allow researchers to  observe how drivers resolve traffic conflicts; react to traffic controls, such  as road signs and stoplights; and adjust to changing environmental  conditions, such as light, weather, and pavement quality. Figure 2 provides  the projected budget and timeline, by research category, for the SHRP 2  safety projects.
According to SHRP 2 staff, the naturalistic driving study is expected to  produce the largest and most comprehensive database on driver behavior  available to date because, unlike most previous studies that generally  relied on simulations and subjective post accident observations, the  naturalistic driving study is expected to provide objective information on  driver behavior in real-world circumstances. These data are expected to  help transportation officials (1) better understand risk factors, such as  driver distractions, associated with different crash factors, and, ultimately,  (2) develop practical measures to effectively reduce collisions or  otherwise improve highway safety. SHRP 2 staff stated that while some  data analysis is planned (about $5 million), significantly more analytic  work will be needed after the conclusion of SHRP 2 to fully realize the  benefits of these data. According to these staff, future analyses of these  data likely will lead to significant improvements in highway safety,  particularly related to accidents that occur when vehicles run off the  road—a major cause of highway fatalities. In addition, the safety TCC  expects the results of the site-based project likely will lead to similar  future studies that may provide more comprehensive information on, for  example, accidents resulting from collisions at intersections, where many  accidents occur. See appendix II for additional information on how these  projects were reprioritized for funding and selected information about the  currently funded safety projects.
section_title: About $32 Million Has Been Allocated for 28 Renewal Research Projects; 27 Are Completed or Ongoing and 1 Is Planned
paragraphs: As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated  about $32 million to fund 3 completed and 24 ongoing projects, and 1  future project, for a total of 28 renewal projects. The goal of the renewal  research is “to develop a consistent, systematic approach to performing  highway renewal that is (1) rapid, (2) causes minimum disruption, and (3)  produces long-lived facilities.” The SHRP 2 renewal TCC expects the  collection of renewal projects will promote a systematic approach to  highway rehabilitation and reconstruction (i.e., highway renewal) and  result in quicker, more efficient, and improved repairs because the  projects are designed to, among other matters, minimize travel disruptions  and produce long-lived (i.e., more durable) facilities.
Nineteen of the 28 funded projects focus on developing rapid approaches  to highway renewal and are expected to reduce the time involved in  preparing and executing construction projects. In total, the oversight  committee allocated about $21.5 million (about 67 percent of total renewal  funding) for these 19 projects. In addition, the oversight committee  allocated about $2.5 million to fund 4 projects to minimize disruptions to  travelers, communities, or utilities while renewal construction is under  way, and about $8 million to fund 5 projects for producing more durable  facilities needed to minimize the frequency of highway-related repairs.  Figure 3 provides the projected budget and timeline, by research category,  for the SHRP 2 renewal projects.
The renewal TCC expects research in this area will promote rapid and  durable highway rehabilitation and reconstruction and result in the  production and implementation of various tools (i.e., hardware or  technology) and techniques (i.e., strategies, procedures,  recommendations, guidelines, or specifications). Overall, the renewal TCC  expects 19 of the 28 projects will primarily develop tools, while the  remaining 9 will primarily develop techniques for promoting rapid highway  renewal. Specifically:    To advance rapid approaches to highway renewal, 15 projects are  expected to primarily develop tools, while 4 projects are expected to  primarily develop techniques. For example, regarding tools, some of the 15  projects are expected to produce technologies for efficiently locating and  characterizing underground utilities. This is necessary because studies  show that locating utilities, such as water mains and electrical and gas  lines, is the most significant source of delay in highway renewal work.  Regarding techniques, one of the 4 projects is expected to produce best  practices and recommendations for addressing worker fatigue, which,  according to SHRP 2 staff, can (1) negatively affect performance and the  quality of work performed and (2) increase the potential for time- consuming and costly mistakes, accidents, and injuries among workers  who often are required to work for extended periods of time.
To minimize disruptions during renewal work, each of the 4 funded  projects is expected to produce techniques for foreseeing and avoiding or  mitigating travel disruptions. For example, 1 project is expected to  establish cooperative strategies that help transportation agencies and  utility companies effectively manage utilities throughout the renewal  efforts, thereby minimizing disruptions to highway users and utility users  in surrounding communities.
To produce durable highway facilities, 4 of the 5 projects are expected to  primarily develop tools, such as technologies for designing and  constructing bridges to increase the service life of bridges, while the other  is expected to primarily develop techniques for preserving pavements to  promote a longer service life.
See appendix III for additional information on how these projects were  reprioritized for funding and selected information about the currently  funded renewal projects.
section_title: About $20 Million Has Been Allocated for 21 Reliability Research Projects; 11 Are Completed or Ongoing and 10 Are Planned
paragraphs: As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated  about $20 million to fund 1 completed, 10 ongoing, and 10 future projects,  for a total of 21 reliability research projects. The goal of the reliability  research is “to provide highway users with reliable travel times by  preventing and reducing the impact of nonrecurring incidents.” Thus,  projects in the reliability area are designed to address highway congestion  caused by nonrecurring (i.e., relatively unpredictable) events—such as  traffic accidents, work zones, special events, and weather. The SHRP 2  reliability TCC expects these research results will help transportation  practitioners provide highway users with reliable travel times by, for  example, helping to ensure that an individual’s commute to work is  consistently the same and minimally affected by congestion caused by  relatively unpredictable events.
The reliability TCC divided research in this area into four principal  categories addressing different aspects of travel time reliability. The  oversight committee allocated most of the funds, $11.6 million (about 57  percent of total reliability funding), to 14 projects in two of the four  reliability research categories—“data and analysis” and “institutional and  human components.” Collectively, the 14 projects are expected to (1)  develop data, analytical tools, and procedures for monitoring travel time  reliability; (2) develop performance measures and models to evaluate the  effectiveness of actions to control and mitigate the impact of relatively  unpredictable events that cause congestion; and (3) identify how the  institutional behaviors of transportation and public safety agencies and the  human behaviors of travelers contribute to unpredictable events that  affect congestion.
The oversight committee allocated the remaining funds—about $8.6  million (or, approximately, 43 percent of total reliability funding)—for  projects in the three remaining research categories. Specifically, the  committee allocated about $5.3 million to 4 projects for “incorporating  reliability into planning, programming, and design” of highways. Further,  the oversight committee allocated about $1.5 million to 2 projects to  encourage the development of innovative ideas related to “future needs  and opportunities to improve travel time reliability.” Finally, in November  2008, the oversight committee allocated about $1.8 million for a project to  produce a framework for integrating the results of the reliability research,  potentially providing transportation decision makers and practitioners  with a guide to (1) understand travel time reliability and (2) incorporate  reliability strategies into their project planning and design. Figure 4  provides the projected budget and timeline, by research category, for the  SHRP 2 reliability projects.
Overall, the reliability TCC expects this research will develop and promote  programs and strategies that monitor and improve travel time reliability.  For example, one project focuses on developing guidance for establishing  programs to monitor travel time reliability. Additionally, some projects are  expected to use data collected from the SHRP 2 safety projects to  understand how driver behavior is affected by relatively unpredictable  events that cause congestion. Other projects are expected to develop  measures for understanding the effectiveness of strategies used by  transportation agencies, while some focus more on the managerial aspects  of agencies, such as the identification of the optimal organizational  structure to monitor travel time reliability. Moreover, the oversight  committee funded 2 projects to incorporate some of the reliability  research results into two widely used reference manuals for highway  designers—TRB’s Highway Capacity Manual and AASHTO’s Policy on  Geometric Design for Highways and Streets. According to SHRP 2 staff,  the inclusion of some of the research results into these reference manuals,  such as research on cost-effective highway design features that can reduce  the effects of relatively unpredictable events, represents a significant step  toward the systematic implementation of the reliability research findings.  SHRP 2 staff noted that the incorporation of travel time reliability into  highway design, construction, and management is a relatively new concept  for the transportation community. The staff said that they are hopeful that  research in this area will result in innovative methods for reducing  congestion. See appendix IV for additional information on how these  projects were reprioritized for funding and selected information about the  currently funded reliability projects.
section_title: About $21 Million Has Been Allocated for 20 Capacity Research Projects; 13 Are Completed or Ongoing and 7 Are Planned
paragraphs: As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated  about $21 million to fund 2 completed, 11 ongoing, and 7 future projects,  for a total of 20 capacity research projects. The goal of the capacity  research is “to develop approaches and tools for systematically integrating  environmental, economic, and community requirements into the analysis,  planning, and design of new highway capacity.” The SHRP 2 capacity TCC  expects this research will promote a holistic approach to addressing  highway capacity issues.
The capacity TCC divided the capacity projects into two categories: the (1)  development of a “collaborative decision-making framework,” to establish  a decision-making process that includes environmental, economic, and  social impacts of highway capacity efforts, and (2) “improvement in  methods” to address common issues that arise during the design, planning,  and execution of capacity-enhancing efforts. The oversight committee  allocated most of the funds, $13.9 million (about 66 percent of total  capacity funding), for 13 projects related to the first category of projects  and $7.2 million for 7 projects in the second category. Figure 5 provides  the projected budget and timeline, by research category, for the SHRP 2  capacity projects.
The capacity TCC expects the outcomes of the 13 capacity projects to  develop a framework for improving collaboration among transportation  agencies, community and government stakeholders, and the general  public, which could result in more comprehensive, efficient, and informed  decision making. Specifically, the collaborative decision-making  framework is expected to (1) provide guidance to agencies at key decision  points and (2) help transportation stakeholders consider a variety of  issues throughout the decision-making process. The following issues are  included in the framework:    community issues (e.g., comparative assessments of how alternative  capacity efforts affect communities);    environmental issues (e.g., analyses of how capacity-enhancing projects  affect greenhouse emissions and the effective protection of wetlands);   economic issues (e.g., assessments of matters, such as the expected  increase in employment and tax revenue of highway capacity projects to  the local economy); and travel time reliability issues (e.g., the effective loss of capacity because of  relatively unpredictable events that cause congestion).
In addition, the capacity TCC expects the outcomes of the remaining seven  projects will provide better methods for improving capacity efforts, such  as models and analyses needed to assess the consequences of capacity- related enhancements. For example, one project is expected to establish  partnerships with local transportation agencies and develop and  operationalize an innovative travel demand model for analyzing the effects  of capacity management strategies. The capacity TCC expects that this  project will help transportation agencies better understand how their  management strategies affect highway capacity, such as how their  decisions about speed limits or the use of reversible travel lanes affect  congestion. Another project in this category is expected to help  transportation practitioners understand the impact of highway tolls and  other pricing strategies on highway congestion. See appendix V for  additional information on how these projects were reprioritized for  funding and selected information about the currently funded capacity  projects.
section_title: Because of Funding and Time Constraints, 50 of the 106 Projects Identified in 2003 Were Eliminated Entirely, while Many of the Remaining 56 Projects Had Portions of Their Planned Research Eliminated
paragraphs: As a result of SHRP 2’s reprioritization process, 50 of the 106 projects  identified in 2003 were eliminated entirely, and many of the remaining 56  projects that either evolved into, or were merged with, one or more SHRP  2 projects had one or more aspects of their research eliminated from  funding. As discussed, the reprioritization process was needed to adjust to  funding and time constraints that had not been anticipated when the  programs’ detailed project plans were developed in 2003. According to  SHRP 2 staff, in the end, the oversight committee typically funded applied  research to develop products critical to transportation agencies and other  stakeholders—rather than many of the implementation-related activities,  such as testing the research results in real-world settings. Thus, the  eliminated research typically was for, among other activities, (1)  translating research results into products (i.e., research applications), (2)  training and dissemination of the research findings (i.e., technology  transfer), and (3) providing technical support for implementing research  products and technologies and for demonstrating new technologies (i.e.,  research implementation).
According to DOT and AASHTO officials and SHRP 2 staff, early results of  the SHRP 2 research have been promising but likely would be enhanced  with additional funding to restore some of the eliminated research. DOT  officials and SHRP 2 staff explained that initial research results often  require additional research and development in real-world trials before a  usable product is ready for implementation. Thus, in their collective view,  to fully achieve the original expectations for SHRP 2, it will be important  to eventually fund some of the research that had to be eliminated because  of funding and time constraints. SHRP 2 staff further explained that the  sooner new research findings are implemented, the earlier that the  performance and economic benefits of the research will begin to accrue.  Similarly, in June 2008, the Chief Deputy Director of the California  Department of Transportation (and AASHTO representative) testified  before the House Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation that the  ultimate success of SHRP 2 research will depend on widespread  deployment. According to SHRP 2 staff, they are hopeful that other  researchers will develop projects for implementing some of SHRP 2’s  research after the program’s completion.
The following sections provide information on some of the eliminated  research.
Of the 15 safety projects identified in 2003, 6 projects were eliminated  entirely, including 2 of the 3 projects related to the site-based risk study.  As discussed, this study was expected to use multiple overhead video  cameras to record the relative position and motion of each vehicle passing  through selected locations under different traffic conditions or with  different signal phases (e.g., left turns and yellow lights) to evaluate the  effect on the traffic. To complete the study, the SHRP 2 safety TCC  originally anticipated that 3 projects would be funded to (1) develop  technology and methods for data collection and conduct a pilot test, (2)  implement the study in field tests, and (3) analyze the resulting data and  assess the implications of these data. However, because of funding and  time constraints, the oversight committee funded only 1 of the 3 projects  and, thus, SHRP 2 will not, according to the safety TCC, result in a  comprehensive assessment of the risk of collision associated with driver  behavior.
In addition, the 2 projects identified in 2003 for evaluating  countermeasures were not funded. Overall, this research was intended to  (1) address the effectiveness of existing countermeasures through  rigorous, retrospective studies of accidents under different conditions, and  (2) support the development of new countermeasures. The first of the 2  eliminated projects was expected to identify and prioritize  countermeasure issues for subsequent evaluations, while the second  project would have evaluated the identified countermeasure issues to  determine the associated benefits and costs based on retrospective crash  data. A key requirement for both of these projects was the use of expected  data from the site-based risk and naturalistic driving studies. However,  because designing field studies requires substantial resources and time,  neither of these projects was funded.
According to DOT officials and SHRP 2 staff, the 2 site-based and 2  countermeasures evaluation projects were dropped, in part because they  expected more promising outcomes from the naturalistic driving study.  AASHTO representatives agreed and told us that it would not have been  helpful to reduce funding for the naturalistic driving study to, instead, fund  other projects because a larger, more comprehensive data set on driver  behavior is needed for developing new and improved countermeasures.  Thus, given limited funding, the SHRP 2 safety TCC decided to allocate  most of the safety funding toward the development of this data set.
Finally, while the oversight committee funded all but 2 of the naturalistic  driving study projects identified in 2003, that research also was affected by  funding realities. Specifically, the study originally was intended to collect 3  years of data from about 4,000 volunteer drivers. However, 1 year and  about 1,000 volunteers had to be eliminated from the planned study  because of the shorter time frame for carrying out SHRP 2. According to  SHRP 2 staff, an additional year of research would have yielded about 50  percent more data at little additional cost, since the equipment for the  vehicles already would have been purchased. See appendix II for  additional information on how the safety projects identified in 2003 were  reprioritized for funding and the currently funded safety projects.
Of the 38 renewal projects identified in 2003, 17 projects were eliminated  entirely. According to DOT and SHRP 2 staff, the renewal area probably  was most affected by the reprioritization process because many of the  projects identified in 2003 were daisy-chained together and thus  dependent on the completion or initiation of other related projects. Many  of the 17 projects were eliminated for this reason, while others were  eliminated because they were similar to other recent, current, or planned  research. Additionally, given less funding and time than originally  anticipated, the SHRP 2 renewal TCC decided that many of the 17 projects,  including several projects for developing technologies and techniques to  (1) continuously monitor the health and performance of bridges and (2)  improve their maintenance with minimum disruptions to users, should be  eliminated from funding consideration because they were of lower priority  than other research projects.
Further, while not entirely eliminated, some of the renewal projects  selected for funding were reduced in scope, and implementation activities  related to the research were not funded. For example, all of the renewal  projects identified in 2003 that focused on innovative methods to locate  and characterize underground utilities were scaled down because they  depended on the outcomes of projects that had not been funded. In other  cases, laboratory evaluations, field case studies, and demonstrations of  proposed systems for improving pavements and bridges were eliminated  because related pilot projects for implementing the research were not  funded. See appendix III for additional information on how the renewal  projects identified in 2003 were reprioritized for funding and the currently  funded renewal projects.
Of the 33 reliability projects identified in 2003, 20 projects were eliminated  entirely. As with the other areas, SHRP 2 staff told us that the reliability  projects identified in 2003 needed to be reevaluated to fund as many high- priority projects as possible given available funding and time frames.  According to the staff, the reprioritization of these projects was the most  challenging area and, consequently, required the assistance of a facilitator  to aid in the decision-making process. Because research for reducing the  impact of relatively unpredictable causes of congestion and improving  travel time reliability is new, the collection of SHRP 2 projects identified in  2003 was expected to provide a comprehensive approach to collecting  real-time information for use in assessing travel time reliability. However,  given less funding and time than had been expected, the SHRP 2 reliability  TCC decided to focus on high-priority projects needed to collect and  analyze fundamental data for improving travel times for travelers.
In addition, some of the 20 eliminated projects were designed to improve  agencies’ response to relatively unpredictable events through the use of  new technologies to (1) monitor traffic and roadway conditions, (2)  instantaneously communicate information about incidents and work zones  to highway users, and (3) provide information about transporting  hazardous materials to better prepare agencies that respond to accidents.  Furthermore, several of the eliminated projects were designed to study the  effect of various weather and pavement conditions on travel time  reliability. According to SHRP 2 staff, these and other reliability projects  identified in 2003 had to be eliminated because of funding and time  constraints for conducting follow-on projects needed to apply the research  results and transfer the technology developed to highway practitioners  and other users. Thus, according to the staff, field tests to demonstrate the  usefulness of the research to practitioners, provide additional insights into  how the results can be implemented by agencies and other users, and  create more usable future products will be needed following completion of  SHRP 2. See appendix IV for additional information on how the reliability  projects identified in 2003 were reprioritized for funding and the currently  funded reliability projects.
Of the 20 capacity projects identified in 2003, 7 projects were eliminated  entirely. According to FHWA officials and SHRP 2 staff, the philosophy  underlying this research area had to be completely reevaluated largely  because the research planned in 2003 envisioned a much larger and  broader scale of research. Specifically, many of the 2003 projects related  to the development of a “virtual workspace” for highway planning and  development intended to visually illustrate the effects of alternative  planning approaches. According to SHRP 2 staff, the virtual workspace,  once developed, would have facilitated simultaneous data transfer  between highway practitioners at each step of the highway planning  process. However, the SHRP 2 capacity TCC scaled down or eliminated  most of the projects for advanced data gathering, access, and the  computerized display elements that would be required for the virtual  workspace, and, instead, decided to focus on research needed to produce  the collaborative decision-making framework for highway planning and  development.
SHRP 2 staff told us that most of the scaled-down or eliminated projects  were for research application and implementation, such as technology  transfer. Specifically, regarding the application of research results, many  of the eliminated projects were expected to (1) enhance public and  stakeholder support for capacity-enhancing projects and (2) develop  partnerships to provide training and implement the research.  Collectively, these projects were intended to result in the systematic  integration of environmental, economic, and community requirements into  the analysis, planning, and design for enhancing highway capacity. In  addition, while the currently funded capacity research projects are  expected to result in the development of (1) a Web-based tool for using the  collaborative decision-making framework and (2) manuals and tools to  assist transportation agencies make more comprehensive and informed  decisions, according to SHRP 2 staff, additional implementation, including  technology transfer, will be needed to help ensure that the research results  are widely implemented. See appendix V for additional information on  how the capacity projects identified in 2003 were reprioritized for funding  and the currently funded capacity projects.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOT and TRB for review and  comment. DOT and TRB provided technical clarifications, which we  incorporated, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional  committees and members, DOT, TRB, and others. The report also is  available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address our three reporting objectives, we reviewed the legislative  requirements, goals, and objectives for the Second Strategic Highway  Research Program (SHRP 2), including the Transportation Equity Act for  the 21st Century; the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation  Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); and the SAFETEA-LU  Technical Corrections Act of 2008. We also reviewed the Department of  Transportation’s strategic plan for fiscal years 2006-2011, and the Federal  Highway Administration’s October 2008 Strategic Plan and its Corporate  Master Plan for Research and Deployment of Technology and Innovation.  In addition, we reviewed and analyzed literature, studies, and reports  related to the research program. Our review included reports by GAO and  the Congressional Research Service that provided background information  on the first Strategic Highway Research Program, SHRP 2, and the Federal  Highway Administration’s research and technology program, including its  federal-aid highway program. We also reviewed the Transportation  Research Board’s (TRB) Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research:  Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life; Special  Report 261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology;  Special Report 296: Implementing the Results of the Second Strategic  Highway Research Program: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion,  Improving Quality of Life; and the National Cooperative Highway  Research Program’s Report 510: Interim Planning for a Future Strategic  Highway Research Program. Finally, we reviewed quarterly, semiannual,  and annual SHRP 2 reports; annual research plans for the four SHRP 2  research areas; and report summaries of the funded SHRP 2 projects.
To address our first two objectives (i.e., determining the process for  selecting research projects for funding and the status of those projects),  we reviewed the statutory requirements for SHRP 2 and reviewed available  agency and program documentation. We also determined how the program  is monitored and the program’s reporting requirements. In addition, we  obtained and analyzed agency and program documentation on projects  that were either funded or identified for potential funding in the 2003  detailed research plans, as well as the revised plans for reprioritizing  projects for funding. We also reviewed this documentation to identify how  TRB plans to evaluate the research and how the outcomes of the research  are expected to address highway challenges.
To address our third objective (i.e., determining what, if any, planned  research was eliminated from the program), we compared program  documentation related to the currently funded projects with the four  research areas identified in Special Report 260 and the projects identified  in the 2003 research plans. We also determined how actual funding for the  four research areas compared with the funding levels recommended in  Special Report 260. Because of time constraints, we did not assess the  appropriateness of funding decisions or projects selected for SHRP 2  funding.
To address all three objectives, we also interviewed agency officials from  the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal Highway  Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,  and representatives from the National Research Council, TRB, SHRP 2  staff, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation  Officials (AASHTO).
We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 through February  2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Safety Research Projects
paragraphs: The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded many of the safety projects  identified in the 2003 detailed research plans based on the  recommendations of the SHRP 2 safety technical coordinating committee.  As a result, 9 of the 15 safety projects identified in 2003 either evolved or  were partially merged into the currently funded safety projects and 6 were  eliminated. Table 6 provides information on the safety projects identified  in 2003 and how they were reprioritized for funding. Table 7 provides  information on the 16 currently funded SHRP 2 safety projects.
section_title: Appendix III: Renewal Research Projects
paragraphs: The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded many of the renewal projects  identified in the 2003 detailed research plans based on the  recommendations of the SHRP 2 renewal technical coordinating  committee. As a result, 21 of the 38 renewal projects identified in 2003  either evolved or were partially merged into the currently funded renewal  projects and 17 were eliminated. Table 8 provides information on the  renewal projects identified in 2003 and how they were reprioritized for  funding. Table 9 provides information on the 28 currently funded SHRP 2  renewal projects.
section_title: Appendix IV: Reliability Research Projects
paragraphs: The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded many of the reliability projects  identified in the 2003 detailed research plans based on the  recommendations of the SHRP 2 reliability technical coordinating  committee. As a result, 13 of the 33 reliability projects identified in 2003  either evolved or were partially merged into the currently funded  reliability projects and 20 were eliminated. Table 10 provides information  on the reliability projects identified in 2003 and how they were  reprioritized for funding. In addition, 4 funded projects, which had not  been identified in 2003, were developed to fill research gaps or provide  more affordable research alternatives. Table 11 provides information on  the 21 currently funded SHRP 2 reliability projects.
section_title: Appendix V: Capacity Research Projects
paragraphs: The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded many of the capacity projects  identified in the 2003 detailed research plans based on the  recommendations of the SHRP 2 capacity technical coordinating  committee. As a result, 13 of the 20 capacity projects identified in 2003  either evolved or were partially merged into the currently funded capacity  projects and 7 were eliminated. Table 12 provides information on the  capacity projects identified in 2003 and how they were reprioritized for  funding. In addition, 2 funded projects, which had not been identified in  2003, were developed to fill research gaps or provide more affordable  research alternatives. Table 13 provides information on the 20 currently  funded SHRP 2 capacity projects.
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Kathleen Turner, Assistant  Director; Vashun Cole; Silvia Arbelaez-Ellis; Dana Hopings; and Amy  Rosewarne made important contributions to this report.