Highway Research
Systematic Selection and Evaluation Processes Needed for Research Program Gao ID: GAO-02-573 May 24, 2002The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has received hundreds of millions of dollars for its surface transportation research and technology program during the past decade. For example, in 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, included over $447 million for fiscal year 2002 for FHWA's transportation research and technology efforts for six-year period of 1998 through 2003. FHWA's research and technology program is complex because each of the program offices within the agency are responsible for identifying research needs, formulating strategies to address transportation problems, and setting goals that support the agency's strategic goals. One business unit at FHWA's research laboratory provides support for administering the overall program and conducts some of the research. The agency's leadership team provides periodic oversight of the overall program. FHWA's processes for managing the research and technology program, and in particular for developing research agendas and evaluating research outcomes against intended results, do not always align with the best practices for similar federal research and technology programs. FHWA acknowledges that its approach for developing research agenda and involving external stakeholders in determining the direction of the program's research lacks a consistent, transparent, and systematic process. Instead, most external stakeholder involvement is ad hoc through technical committees and professional societies. The agency primarily uses a "success story" approach to evaluate its research outcomes. While this approach shows some benefits, it cannot be used as the primary method to evaluate the outcomes of the research because these stories represent only a fraction of the program's completed research projects. As a result of its relatively varied processes, it is unclear whether the organization is selecting research projects that have the highest potential value, or what is the extent to which these projects have achieved their objectives.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-02-573, Highway Research: Systematic Selection and Evaluation Processes Needed for Research Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-573
entitled 'Highway Research: Systematic Selection and Evaluation
Processes Needed for Research Program' which was released on May 24,
2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as
alternative text descriptions for reformatted tables and agency comment
letters, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or
format in the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file
is an exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO: Report to Congressional Committees:
May 2002:
Highway research:
Systematic Selection and Evaluation Processes Needed for Research
Program:
FHWA‘s Surface Transportation Research and Technology Program:
GAO-02-573:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
FHWA‘s Surface Transportation Research and Technology Program‘s
Organization Is Comples and Decentralized:
FHWA Processes for Developing Research Agendas and Evaluating
Research Outcomes Do Not Always Follow Best Practices for Federal
Research Programs:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Appendix 1. Funding Information for FHWA‘s Research and Technology
Program:
Appendix 2. Federal Highway Administration Organization Charts:
Tables:
Table 1. Roles of Business Units in Research and Technology:
Table 2. Research and Technology Program Allocations by Program Area,
Fiscal Years 1992-1997:
Table 3. Research and Technology Program Allocations by Program Area,
Fiscal Years 1998-2001:
Table 4. Surface Transportation Research and Technology Deployment
Funds, Designated in Statutes and Committee Reports, Fiscal Year
2000:
Table 5. Surface Transportation Research and Technology Deployment
Funds, Designated in Statutes and Committee Reports, Fiscal Year
2001:
Table 6. Surface Transportation Research and Technology Deployment
Funds, Designated in Statutes and Committee Reports, Fiscal Year
2002:
Figures:
Figure 1. Distribution of Surface Transportation Research and
Technology Deployment Funds, Fiscal Year 2002:
Figure 2. Federal Highway Administration‘s Funding for Research and
Technology Program, Fiscal Years 1992-2001:
Figure 3. FHWA‘s Organization Chart before 1998 Restructuring:
Figure 4. FHWA‘s Organization Chart after 1998 Restructuring:
Abbreviations:
DOT: Department of Transportation.
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration.
RTCC: Research and Technology Coordinating Committee:
May 24, 2002:
The Honorable Harold Rogers Chairman The Honorable Martin Sabo Ranking
Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation Committee on
Appropriations House of Representatives:
The Honorable Patty Murray Chairman The Honorable Richard Shelby
Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation Committee on
Appropriations United States Senate:
Throughout the past decade, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
has received hundreds of millions of dollars for its surface
transportation research and technology program. For example, in 1998
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which authorized
the Department of Transportation‘s (DOT) transportation programs for
highways, highway safety, and transit for the 6-year period of 1998
through 2003, included over $447 million for fiscal year 2002 for
FHWA‘s transportation research and technology efforts. These efforts
included programs for surface transportation research, technology
deployment, intelligent transportation systems, training and
education, university transportation research, and the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. In addition to providing funding, this
authorization required DOT to establish a strategic focus for its
surface transportation research and technology program. As it considers
reauthorizing this program, Congress will be making decisions on the
future characteristics of the program and the level of resources it
should receive.
As a result of congressional concern about the efficient and effective
use of the research funds provided for FHWA, the House Committee on
Appropriations report accompanying the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2002 directed us to review
FHWA‘s surface transportation research and technology program by
evaluating program benefits and identifying successful programs and
problems. In response, as agreed with your staff, this report discusses
(1) the organization of FHWA‘s research and technology program and (2)
the extent to which FHWA‘s processes for developing research agendas
and evaluating research outcomes align with the best practices for
similar federal research programs. We are also providing information on
funding for this program since fiscal year 1991 (see app. I). Except
where otherwise noted, this report focuses primarily on those
activities funded by the surface transportation research and technology
deployment categories identified in the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century. However, all categories of funding are presented in
our discussion of historical funding for the agency‘s research and
technology program.
To address these issues we obtained information from FHWA officials,
including representatives of each of its five core business units and
three of its eight service business units, on how the research and
technology program is organized and on FHWA‘s processes for developing
research agendas and evaluating research outcomes. We reviewed program
documents, including budget allocations and department and agency
strategic plans, as well as relevant legislation. We analyzed and
presented data on agency funding of the program since fiscal year 1991.
We also contacted or met with representatives of DOT‘s Research and
Special Programs Administration, the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Transportation Research
Board. [Footnote 1] We also reviewed various publications on best
practices in federal research from the Transportation Research Board
and the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. We
selected these publications on best practices because they were most
relevant to the program aspects we reviewed and to federal agencies
that support scientific and engineering research. We conducted our
review from August 2001 through May 2002 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
FHWA‘s research and technology program‘s organization is complex and
decentralized throughout the agency. The program‘s organization is
complex because each of the program offices within the agency (called
business units) is responsible for identifying research needs,
formulating strategies to address transportation problems, and setting
goals for research and technology activities that support the agency‘s
strategic goals. One business unit that is located at FHWA‘s research
laboratory provides support for administering the overall program and
conducts some of the research. The agency‘s leadership team, consisting
of the directors of the business units and other FHWA offices, provides
periodic oversight of the overall program. In addition to the research
activities within FHWA, the agency collaborates with other DOT agencies
to conduct research and technology activities. Other nonfederal
research and technology organizations also conduct research funded by
FHWA related to highways and bridges. These organizations include state
research and technology programs, the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, private- sector activities, and universities.
FHWA‘s processes for managing the research and technology program, and
in particular for developing research agendas and evaluating research
outcomes against intended results, do not always align with the best
practices for similar federal research and technology programs. Leading
research organizations recognize that it is challenging for research
and technology programs to set goals and evaluate results in a
traditional manner. Nevertheless, best practices used in other federal
research programs or recommended by experts include: (1) developing
research agendas in consultation with external stakeholders to identify
high-value research and (2) using a systematic approach to evaluate
ongoing and completed research through such techniques as peer review.
FHWA acknowledges that its approach for developing research agendas and
involving external stakeholders in determining the direction of the
program‘s research lacks a consistent, transparent, and systematic
process. Instead, most external stakeholder involvement is ad hoc
through technical committees and professional societies. FHWA officials
also told us that their research decisions were affected by funding
designations contained in authorizing legislation as well as in reports
accompanying annual appropriations acts that reflect congressional
interests. Between 44 and 48 percent of authorized surface
transportation research and technology deployment funds were designated
in fiscal years 2000 through 2002. With regard to evaluating research
outcomes, FHWA officials also told us that the agency does not have a
systematic process. Instead, the agency primarily uses a ’success
story“ approach to evaluate its research outcomes. While this approach
shows that the agency‘s research produces some benefits, it cannot be
used as the primary method to evaluate the outcomes of the research
against intended results because these stories represent only a
fraction of the program‘s completed research projects. As a result of
its relatively varied processes, it is unclear whether the organization
is selecting research projects that have the highest potential value,
or what is the extent to which these projects have achieved their
objectives. We are making recommendations to improve the agency‘s
agenda-development processes and its approach to evaluation by
incorporating the use of best practices for the research and technology
program. FHWA commented on a draft of this report and generally agreed
with our findings and recommendations.
Background:
FHWA is the DOT agency responsible for federal highway programs--
including distributing billions of dollars in federal highway funds to
the states--and developing federal policy regarding the nation‘s
highways. The agency provides technical assistance to improve the
quality of the transportation network, conducts transportation
research, and disseminates research results throughout the country.
FHWA‘s business units conduct these activities through its research and
technology program, which includes ’research“ (conducting research
activities), ’development“ (developing practical applications or
prototypes of research findings), and ’technology“ (communicating
research and development knowledge and products to users). FHWA
maintains a highway research facility in McLean, Virginia. This
facility, known as the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, has
over 24 indoor and outdoor laboratories and support facilities.
Approximately 300 federal employees, on-site contract employees, and
students are currently engaged in transportation research at the
center.
According to FHWA officials, the agency‘s research and technology
program is oriented to supporting the agency‘s and DOT‘s strategic
goals for the nation‘s transportation system, including:
* to promote public health and safety by working toward the elimination
of transportation-related deaths and injuries;
* to provide an accessible, affordable, and reliable transportation
system for all people, goods, and regions;
* to support a transportation system that sustains the nation‘s
economic
growth;
* to protect and enhance communities and the natural environment
affected
by transportation; and:
* to ensure the security of the transportation system for the movement
of
people and goods, and to support the national security strategy.
The research and technology program is generally a component of broader
agency programs directed toward the achievement of these strategic
goals. For example, in a recent report the Transportation Research
Board‘s Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC) stated
that most of FHWA‘s research and technology program‘s projects are
aimed at incremental improvements to lower highway construction and
maintenance costs, improve highway system performance, increase highway
capacity, reduce highway fatalities and injuries, reduce adverse
environmental impacts, and provide a variety of benefits such as
improved travel times and fewer hazards for highway users. [Footnote 2]
Concerned about the strategic focus of surface transportation research
and technology activities, Congress required DOT to establish a
strategic planning process to identify national priorities related to
research and technology for surface transportation when it passed the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century in 1998. This process
was to result in a strategic plan that included, among other things,
performance goals, resources needed to achieve those goals, and
performance indicators for the succeeding 5 years for each area of
research and technology deployment. The plan was also to be developed
with comments from external stakeholders. In response to this
requirement, FHWA contributed to the development of a research,
development, and technology strategic plan for all of DOT. DOT‘s plan
identifies formal research, development, and technology strategies to
support each of DOT‘s strategic goals. The plan is not focused solely
on surface transportation research but applies to all modes, including
examples of research activities undertaken by FHWA in support of the
agency‘s strategic goals. Congress also required that a group
established by the National Research Council review DOT‘s plan, and
this has taken place for several years. Separately, in 1998 FHWA
developed a 10-year strategic plan for the agency as a whole, stating
that research is a strategy for achieving the plan‘s objectives. The
Research, Development, and Technology business unit has developed
performance plans that support some of FHWA‘s research efforts.
Funding mechanisms for this program‘s activities have varied in recent
years. Prior to fiscal year 1992, they were wholly funded from FHWA‘s
administrative and operating funds. From fiscal years 1992 through
1997, the program was supported by a mix of operating funds and funds
made available for specific types of research. For fiscal years 1998
through 2003, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
authorized funding for the following seven research activities: surface
transportation research, technology deployment, training and
education, intelligent transportation systems, intelligent
transportation systems deployment, university transportation centers,
and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. [Footnote 3] Since 1998,
FHWA has generally not used administrative funds for research
activities. A portion of the funds for the research and technology
program are designated for or directed to particular research programs
and recipients, either in the authorization or appropriations
legislation or in committee reports. Although FHWA technical staff set
priorities for the research and technology program, its activities are
carried out through a combination of federal employees, private
contractors and grantees, and university researchers. During the past
decade, the use of contract employees instead of federal employees to
conduct research has increased. Because the program‘s authorizing
legislation is scheduled to expire in fiscal year 2003, to continue it
Congress will have to reauthorize the program and determine how it will
be funded.
FHWA‘s Surface Transportation Research and Technology Program‘s
Organization Is Complex and Decentralized:
Since 1998, individual business units within FHWA have directed and
carried out the activities of FHWA‘s research and technology program
that fall under the surface transportation research and technology
deployment areas. (See app. II for agency organization charts.) Under
the current organization, directors of these business units (Federal
Lands Highway; Infrastructure; Operations; Planning and Environment;
Policy; Research, Development, and Technology; and Safety) work
collaboratively to provide leadership for the program‘s activities (see
table 1).
Table 1. Roles of Business Units in Research and Technology:
Unit name: Federal Lands Highway; Role in research and technology:
Development of applied research and technology applicable to
transportation systems serving federal lands.; Examples of current
research and technology projects: Road Surface Analyzer (ROSAN)
measurement of pavement smoothness.
Unit name: Infrastructure; Role in research and technology: Development
of research and technology in the areas of highway construction and
physical maintenance, pavements, and structures.; Examples of current
research and technology projects: Long-term pavement performance.;
Concrete research and technology.; Innovative bridge technology.
Unit name: Operations; Role in research and technology: Development of
research and technology program plans for the Intelligent
Transportation Systems program, as well as operation of the
transportation system and management of freight transportation.;
Examples of current research and technology projects: Research into
advanced traffic simulation modeling.; Prediction tools and research
into advanced, adaptive traffic signal control strategies.; Analysis of
critical intermodal freight corridors and facilities.; Work zone best
practices guide and program support.
Unit name: Planning and Environment; Role in research and technology:
Development of research and technology in the areas of planning,
environment, and property acquisition.; Examples of current research
and technology projects: Workshops, synthesis materials, and case
studies of state consultation practices with rural officials.;
Statewide planning and travel forecasting training.; Research on the
contribution of transportation to air pollution and on strategies to
reduce transportation effects.; Highway noise barrier design handbook.
Unit name: Policy; Role in research and technology: Development of
analytical tools and data systems for policy development and studies;
conducting analysis and studies to support the formulation of
transportation policy and legislative initiatives; and preparation of
major reports to Congress on highway policy issues.; Examples of
current research and technology projects: National personal
transportation survey.; Highway cost allocation study.; Production of
biennial report, ’Status of the Nation‘s Highways, Bridges, and
Transit: Condition and Performance.“
Unit name: Safety; Role in research and technology: Leading in
development of research and technology activities in the areas of
Intersections; Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety; Roadside Safety; Run-
Off-Road Safety; and Speed Management.; Examples of current research
and technology projects: Interactive highway safety design model for
two-lane roads.; Pedestrian safety countermeasure selection system.;
Education and community programs for pedestrian/bicyclist safety.;
Analysis of intersection safety issues.; Red-light running prevention.;
Speed limit setting and enforcement.; Variable speed limits.
Unit name: Research, Development, and Technology; Role in research and
technology: Support of all other business units in the development and
delivery of new technologies.; Examples of current research and
technology projects: Research activities to support Infrastructure,
Operations, and Safety business units.
Source: GAO presentation of information provided by FHWA.
[End of table]
The program‘s management is complex because these business units are
individually responsible, among other things, for identifying research
needs, developing strategies to address transportation problems, and
managing research and technology activities that support the agency‘s
strategic goals. In some cases, the business units conduct their own
research. However, the Research, Development, and Technology business
unit, located at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, conducts
research for the Infrastructure, Operations, and Safety business units.
The Research, Development, and Technology business unit also works with
the other business units to prepare materials to support the program‘s
overall budget, and it serves as FHWA‘s liaison to other organizations
that advise FHWA on research or conduct highway-related research. The
agency‘s leadership team, composed of the business unit directors,
field service directors, a division administrator, the FHWA
administrator, and the FHWA executive director, meets periodically to
advise the business units on research and technology program
priorities, budgets, and milestones.
FHWA‘s leadership team advises the business units on how funds should
be distributed by considering designations in statutes and committee
reports and the stated needs of individual business units. The Office
of the Administrator approves final budgets for the business units. In
fiscal year 2002, the business unit responsible for the largest
percentage of surface transportation research and technology deployment
funds was the Infrastructure business unit (see fig. 1).
Figure 1. Distribution of Surface Transportation Research and
Technology
Deployment Funds, Fiscal Year 2002:
Note: Business units are responsible for managing these funds but may
distribute them to other business units to meet research needs. For
example, Infrastructure, Operations, and Safety business units
distribute most of their research funds to the Research, Development,
and Technology business unit to conduct particular research on their
behalf. The FHWA-wide category in this figure includes funds for
research projects in which multiple offices within FHWA have
responsibility.
Source: GAO analysis of data from FHWA.
[End of Figure]
Prior to the agencywide restructuring in 1998, research activities were
managed throughout the organization, including at the Office of the
Associate Administrator for Research and Development and the Office of
Technology Applications. Decisions related to developing research and
technology projects, budgets, and acquisition plans were made by the
Research and Technology Executive Board. Chaired by the executive
director, the board‘s membership included all agency associate
administrators, the director of the Intelligent Transportation Systems
Joint Program Office, and one regional administrator. The board met
periodically to obtain information from working groups composed of
representatives from across the agency, the National Highway Institute,
and other DOT agencies. [Footnote 4] FHWA has recently assessed the
effects of its 1998 agencywide restructuring and has drafted 13
recommendations to address the limitations of the new organization. Two
of these recommendations specifically address the agency‘s research and
technology program, identifying the need to raise its stature in FHWA.
The agency has created and filled the position of assistant director
for Research, Technology, and Innovation Deployment as a response to
this recommendation. This new position will also be responsible for
implementing recent recommendations made by the RTCC for improving
FHWA‘s program.
FHWA Collaborates with Other DOT Offices for Research Efforts:
In addition to its own research projects, FHWA collaborates with other
DOT agencies to conduct research. For example, FHWA works with DOT‘s
Research and Special Programs Administration to coordinate efforts to
support key research identified in the department‘s strategic plan.
[Footnote 5] In fiscal year 2001, FHWA and the Research and Special
Programs Administration contributed an estimated $15.2 million and $3.5
million, respectively, for these collaborative, ’intermodal“ research
and technology efforts. Examples of FHWA‘s research with other
transportation modes include:
* an ongoing study with DOT‘s National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, through the Georgia Institute of Technology, to
investigate the relationship between vehicle speed and crash risk under
various demographic, environmental, and physical conditions. Funds from
FHWA were spent to compare the speeds of drivers involved in crashes
with the prevailing speeds of other drivers at the time and location of
the crashes; and:
* a study at the Center for Climate Change and Environmental
Forecasting,
with the collaboration of several other agencies, including DOT‘s
Maritime Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, and National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This study examined the
potential effects on transportation infrastructure of such climate
change phenomena as rising sea levels, increasing frequency of severe
weather events, and changing precipitation levels.
Other Organizations Have a Significant Role in Research and Technology
Efforts:
Several other entities and organizations, detailed below, conduct
surface transportation research that can be related to FHWA‘s research
and technology program. FHWA officials told us that the agency has both
formal and informal means for coordination with some of these other
organizations.
* Each of the 50 states, Washington, D. C., and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico have an independent highway research program. In general,
state programs address technical questions associated with the
planning, design, construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of
highways. State highway research projects usually reflect local
concerns. According to an official at the Transportation Research
Board, 47 states indicated that they spent approximately $322 million
in 1999 on such research. [Footnote 6] State research programs are
generally funded through federal funds set aside from the federal
highway aid apportioned to the states. FHWA division administrators in
each state approve the state‘s annual or biennial research program,
funded by a subset of federal funds. The national association that
represents state departments of transportation, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, also plays a
key role in highway research. This association has a standing committee
on research that develops voluntary standards and guidelines.
* The National Cooperative Highway Research Program conducts research
on
acute problems related to highway planning, design, construction,
operation, and maintenance that are common to most states. Typically,
its research projects are problem-oriented and designed to produce
results that have an immediate application. As voluntary program
members, state departments of transportation approve research projects
and agree to provide financial support. Each member state provides an
amount equal to 5.5 percent of its state planning and research funds.
Program funding for fiscal year 2001 was $30.6 million. FHWA formally
coordinates with members of this program and the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials to review proposed
projects. FHWA also participates in selecting projects that complement
the agency‘s defined program, reducing duplication and leveraging
limited funding.
* The private sector conducts or sponsors individual programs. Private
organizations include companies that design and construct highways and
supply highway-related products, national associations of industry
components, and engineering associations active in construction and
highway transportation. Funding information for private-sector highway
research is generally proprietary in nature, although an official of
the Transportation Research Board estimated that the total funding for
this research ranged from $75 million to $150 million annually.
* Universities receive funding for research on surface transportation
from FHWA, the states, and the private sector. For example, since 1988
DOT has awarded grants under its University Transportation Center
program to universities throughout the nation to support education,
research, and technology deployment. [Footnote 7] Each grantee is
called a University Transportation Center, whether working alone or as
the lead of a consortium of universities. Some have formed centers for
research, education, and training in specialty areas related to highway
transportation. Thirty-three centers currently exist; they were either
selected competitively or specified in legislation. The Office of
Innovation, Research, and Education within the department‘s Research
and Special Programs Administration manages the program; funding
provided for the 33 centers in fiscal year 2001 from FHWA‘s research
and technology program amounted to $23.9 million.
FHWA Processes for Developing Research Agendas and Evaluating Research
Outcomes Do Not Always Follow Best Practices for Federal Research
Programs:
Leading organizations that conduct scientific and engineering research,
other federal agencies with research programs, and experts in research
and technology have identified and use best practices for developing
research agendas and evaluating research outcomes. Although the
uncertain nature of research outcomes over time makes it difficult to
set specific, measurable program goals and evaluate results, the best
practices we identified are designed to ensure that the research
objectives are related to the areas of greatest interest and concern to
research users and that research is evaluated according to these
objectives. These practices include:
* Developing research agendas through the involvement of external
stakeholders: External stakeholder involvement and merit review are
particularly important for FHWA because its research is expected to
improve the construction, safety, and operation of transportation
systems that are primarily managed by others, such as state departments
of transportation. According to RTCC, research has to be closely
connected to its stakeholders to help ensure relevance and program
support, and stakeholders are more likely to promote the use of
research results if they are involved in the research process from the
start. [Footnote 8] The committee also identified merit review of
research proposals based on technical criteria by independent technical
experts as being necessary to help ensure the most effective use of
federal research funds. In 1999, we reported that other federal science
agencies--such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National
Science Foundation--used such reviews to varying degrees to assess the
merits of competitive and noncompetitive research proposals. [Footnote
9]
* Evaluation of research using expert review of the quality of research
outcomes or other best practices: A form of expert review called peer
review is a process that includes an independent assessment of the
technical and scientific merit or quality of research by peers with
essential subject area expertise and perspective equal to that of the
researchers. Peer review does not require that the final impact of the
research be known. In 1999, we reported that federal agencies, such as
the Department of Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health, and
the Department of Energy, use peer review to help them (1) determine
whether to continue or renew research projects, (2) evaluate the
results of research prior to publication of those results, and (3)
evaluate the performance of programs and scientists. [Footnote 10] In
its 1999 report, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public
Policy [Footnote 11] also stated that expert review is widely used to
evaluate three aspects of the Government Performance and Results Act:
[Footnote 12] (1) the quality of current research as compared with
other work being conducted in the field, (2) the relevance of research
to the agency‘s goals and mission, and (3) whether the research is at
the ’cutting edge.“:
External Stakeholders‘ Involvement in Developing the Program‘s Research
Agendas Has Been Limited:
Although FHWA engages external stakeholders in elements of its research
and technology program, the agency currently does not follow the best
practice of engaging external stakeholders on a sustained basis. The
agency expects each business unit to determine how or whether to
involve external stakeholders in the research process. As a result,
this approach is used inconsistently. Prior to its 1998 restructuring,
FHWA worked with some external stakeholders to initiate ’roadmapping“
activities for each of its key research areas that would have resulted
in research agendas for these areas. [Footnote 13] To prepare
individual roadmaps, the agency‘s working groups collaborated across
agency office boundaries and with members of the RTCC. However, before
the roadmapping had been completed for all research areas, FHWA changed
its approach to managing research because of the agency‘s
reorganization, and RTCC‘s involvement with roadmapping ceased.
FHWA acknowledges that its approach to preparing research agendas is
inconsistent and that the directors of FHWA‘s business units primarily
use input from the agency‘s business units, resource centers, and
division offices. Although agency officials told us that resource
center and division office staff provide the business unit directors
with input based on their interactions with external stakeholders,
external stakeholder input into developing research agendas is usually
ad hoc, provided through technical committees and professional
societies. For example, the agency‘s agenda for environmental research
was developed with input from both internal sources (including DOT‘s
and FHWA‘s strategic plans and staff) and external sources (including
the Transportation Research Board‘s reports on environmental research
needs and clean air, environmental justice leaders, planners, civil
rights advocates, and legal experts). Similarly, the agency uses
external stakeholders to provide merit review of research projects on
an ad hoc basis. For example, to prepare its ’Conditions and
Performance Report“, the Policy business unit used a peer review group
to provide input into the Highway Economic Requirements System (an
economic model that uses marginal cost-benefit analysis to optimize
highway investment).
FHWA acknowledges that the agency lacks a consistent, transparent, and
systematic approach for engaging stakeholders in setting research
agendas. However, FHWA has recently taken several steps to increase the
involvement of external stakeholders in developing research agendas.
First, FHWA‘s work with RTCC has resulted in the agency‘s obtaining
occasional external guidance for its overall program since 1991. The
committee points out, however, that it cannot provide broad-based input
from stakeholders on the full range of potential highway research
topics or specific projects on a continuing basis because its
membership is not representative of all the disciplines included in
FHWA‘s research and technology program. [Footnote 14] In its 2001
report, the committee recommended that decisions about FHWA research
topics should balance stakeholders‘ concerns against experts‘ external
reviews and recommendations as to which research areas hold promise for
significant breakthroughs. According to the draft response to the
recommendation, FHWA plans to develop such a process by June 30, 2002.
In addition, in 1998, FHWA helped organize a National Highway Research
and Technology Partnership Forum to identify national highway research
and technology needs using input from external stakeholders. [Footnote
15] Although the forum identified research needs and priorities for
FHWA‘s consideration in its draft report of August 2001, its long-term
role remains to be seen.
FHWA officials told us that their ability to develop their research
agendas using best practices is also affected by funding designations
contained in statutes and committee reports. These designations take a
variety of forms, including requiring FHWA to initiate or maintain
specific research efforts and specifying dollar amounts for particular
recipients. According to agency officials, the designations made by the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and conference reports
accompanying recent appropriations acts have represented significant
proportions of the agency‘s research budget. Using agency data, we
calculated that 44 percent of authorized surface transportation
research and technology deployment funds in fiscal year 2000, 48
percent in fiscal year 2001, and 44 percent in fiscal year 2002 were
designated (see app. I, tables 4, 5, and 6). [Footnote 16] Agency
officials acknowledged that these funding designations reflect
congressional interests and priorities but also stated that without
these designations, FHWA would have an enhanced opportunity to
consistently plan its research agendas and select researchers for its
projects according to accepted best practices.
FHWA Lacks a Systematic Process to Evaluate Research Outcomes:
In 1999, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
reported that federal agencies that support research in science and
engineering have been challenged to find the most useful and effective
ways to evaluate the performance and results of the research programs
they support. However, the committee found that research programs, no
matter what their character and goals, can be evaluated meaningfully on
a regular basis and in accordance with the Government Performance and
Results Act. The committee emphasized that the evaluation methods must
match the type of research and its objectives, and it concluded that
expert or peer review is a particularly effective means to evaluate
federally funded research. The peer review process includes an
independent assessment of the technical and scientific merits of
research by those with knowledge and expertise equal to that of the
researchers whose work they review.
According to FHWA officials, the agency does not have an agencywide
systematic process to evaluate whether its research projects are
achieving intended results and does not generally use a peer review
approach. Although the agency‘s business units may use such various
methods as obtaining feedback from customers and evaluating outputs or
outcomes versus milestones, they all use success stories as the primary
method to evaluate research outcomes. According to agency officials,
success stories are examples of research results adopted or implemented
by such stakeholders as state departments of transportation. Although
agency officials told us that peer reviews are useful to assess
research quality, relevance, and technical breakthroughs, success
stories can document the financial returns on investment and
nonmonetary benefits of research and technology efforts. FHWA officials
provided us with the following examples of success stories:
* Research conducted by the Infrastructure business unit produced a
specification guide on how to mitigate earthquake damage to structures.
The guide was adopted by the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials for inclusion in its guidance to state
departments of transportation.
* The operations research and technology group developed the 511
traveler
telephone number that replaced 300 different traveler information
telephone numbers nationwide. This single, three-digit number is
currently being used in the states of Utah and Nebraska and in parts of
Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio to provide motorists with timely local
travel information to help relieve traffic congestion.
* To respond to one of FHWA‘s priority safety emphases, the safety
research and technology group developed rumble strips to warn drivers
who are driving their vehicles off the road. [Footnote 17] According
to agency officials, in the eight states surveyed that have used rumble
strips, crash reduction has ranged from 18 to 72 percent, and the cost-
benefit ratio has ranged from 30:1 to as high as 60:1.
* Research on long-term pavement performance is significantly improving
the pavement-engineering process nationwide. Engineers are using a
software tool known as a long-term pavement performance bind to more
accurately determine the asphalt binder grade needed for specific
environmental conditions. This software tool has helped highway
agencies to save at least $50 million each year by reducing the
application of unnecessary substances that increase the costs of
highway construction.
In 2001, RTCC also concluded that peer or expert review is an
appropriate way to evaluate FHWA‘s surface transportation research and
technology program. [Footnote 18] Therefore, the committee recommended
a variety of actions, including a systematic evaluation of outcomes by
panels of external stakeholders and technical experts to help ensure
the maximum return on investment in research. Agency officials told us
that increased stakeholder involvement and peer review will require
significant additional expenditures for the program. However, a
Transportation Research Board official told us that the cost of
obtaining expert assistance could be relatively low because the time
needed to provide input would be minimal and could be provided by such
inexpensive methods as electronic mail. As a partial response to RTCC‘s
recommendation, FHWA has established a laboratory assessment process
that will be used to conduct regular reviews of the Turner-Fairbank
Highway Research Center. These reviews will be conducted by panels of
external technical experts and will include such issues as technical
excellence and quality of lab activities. FHWA‘s draft response to this
recommendation indicates that it plans to initiate an evaluation
process by June 30, 2002.
Conclusions:
With millions of dollars for its research, FHWA‘s research and
technology program has the potential to significantly improve the
nation‘s highway system. FHWA has described several success stories to
us but, because its decisions about selecting research and identifying
priorities are uneven in the extent to which they use best practices
such as seeking external input, it is unclear whether the agency is
selecting the most important and relevant research. In addition,
because FHWA does not systematically evaluate its research and
technology program, it is unclear whether the research is having the
intended results or whether some refocusing of the research would be
justified. Therefore, we agree with several of the recent
recommendations from the Transportation Research Board‘s Research and
Technology Coordinating Committee, which were designed to remedy these
limitations of FHWA‘s program. In its draft response to these
recommendations, FHWA has indicated that it will take action on most of
them. The cost of making such improvements in FHWA‘s research and
technology program is unknown and will influence the extent to which
FHWA can adopt certain best practices. Because Congress has been
concerned about the strategic focus of FHWA‘s research and technology
program and will soon have to make decisions about the nature of the
program and the level of resources to devote to it, information
generated by FHWA‘s potentially improved processes for developing
research agendas and evaluating research outcomes, as well as
information about the cost of such changes, will also be useful to
Congress.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help ensure that FHWA‘s research agenda and approach to evaluation
are identifying research with the highest value to the surface
transportation community and monitoring the outcomes of that research,
we are recommending that the secretary of transportation direct the
FHWA administrator to:
* develop a systematic approach for obtaining input from external
stakeholders in determining the research and technology program‘s
agendas;
* develop a systematic process for evaluating significant ongoing and
completed research that incorporates peer review or other best
practices in use at federal agencies that conduct research; and:
* develop specific plans for implementing these recommendations,
including time frames and estimates of their cost.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from FHWA
officials, including the director of Research, Development, and
Technology and the director of the Office of Program Development and
Evaluation. These officials indicated that they were pleased that the
draft report had recognized some of the FHWA research and technology
program‘s accomplishments to date, along with its potential to
significantly improve the nation‘s highway system. They also indicated
general agreement with the draft report‘s overall assessment of the
program and the draft report‘s recommendations.
The FHWA officials told us that they have been working with both
internal and external groups to assess the processes used to plan the
research and technology program and to evaluate its results. These
officials maintain that the program is essentially sound and pursues
worthy research in an effective manner with key program stakeholders.
Nonetheless, the agency officials agreed that improvements are possible
in the methods used to select research and technology projects and to
evaluate program results. They told us that FHWA had recently taken
steps to make research a higher priority for the agency by investing in
research to meet stakeholders‘ needs, improving delivery of innovations
to potential users, and improving business processes in the research
and technology program. As a result of a major restructuring
assessment, FHWA officials told us that the agency has also committed
to making research and technology more prominent as a strategy for
achieving FHWA‘s mission. With regard to project planning and
selection, FHWA officials explained that they are examining ways to
improve existing methods for incorporating stakeholder input and
seeking means to further ensure that stakeholder perspectives are fully
and effectively considered. Finally, with regard to evaluating program
results, FHWA officials told us that although there are merits to
current methods, more extensive and consistent use of best practices
such as peer review could benefit the program.
We acknowledge that FHWA recently has planned or put into place several
initiatives designed to improve its research and technology program,
and we describe these actions in this report. Nevertheless, we continue
to believe that additional actions in response to our recommendations
are warranted to improve FHWA‘s processes for setting research agendas
and evaluating research efforts.
We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees and
subcommittees with responsibilities for transportation, the secretary
of transportation, the Federal Highway Administration administrator,
and the director of the Office of Management and Budget. We will make
copies available to others upon request.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call
me at (202) 512-2834. Key contributors to this report were Sharon Dyer,
Sally Gilley, Octavia Parks, Deena Richart, and Kate Siggerud.
JayEtta Z. Hecker Director, Physical Infrastructure Team:
Signed by JayEtta Z. Hecker.
(544007):
[End of Section]
Appendix 1. Funding Information for FHWA‘s Research and Technology
Program:
In fiscal year 1992 (the first year in which FHWA‘s research and
technology program was authorized under the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991), authorized funding for the
entire program increased almost fivefold, from approximately $88.6
million in fiscal year 1991 to $442.4 million. [Footnote 19] Since
that time, authorized funding for FHWA‘s research and technology
program has remained relatively flat; from fiscal year 1992 through
fiscal year 2001, authorized funding for the program went from $442.4
million to $437.3 million. However, since fiscal year 1998 these
authorized funds have been subject to an obligation limitation that has
reduced amounts available for research purposes an average of about 11
percent a year below authorized funding levels (see fig. 2). [Footnote
20]:
Figure 2. Federal Highway Administration‘s Funding for Research and
Technology
Program, Fiscal Years 1992-2001:
Notes:
Research funds were not subject to a specific obligation limitation
from fiscal years 1992 through 1997. Funds were then subjected to the
following obligation limitations: 89.1 percent in fiscal year 1998;
88.3 percent in fiscal year 1999; 87.1 percent in fiscal year 2000; and
87.9 percent in fiscal year 2001. Fiscal year 2001 funds were also
reduced by a 0.22 percent rescission required by P.L. 106-554. Dollar
amounts are adjusted to 2001 dollars.
This figure includes all categories of funding under research and
technology provided to FHWA.
Source: GAO presentation of data from FHWA.
[End of Figure]
The areas of research funded from fiscal years 1992 through 2001 have
varied based on authorizing legislation. From fiscal year 1992 through
fiscal year 1997, the majority of FHWA‘s entire surface transportation
research and technology funding went to support the Intelligent Vehicle
Highway Systems program. [Footnote 21] The remainder of funds
primarily supported the agency‘s highway research, development, and
technology program and applied research and technology program. Since
fiscal year 1998, the majority of the agency‘s research and technology
program funds have continued to support the intelligent transportation
systems program as well as the surface transportation research program.
(See tables 2 and 3 for funding allocations by program area for fiscal
years 1992 through 2001.):
Table 2. Research and Technology Program Allocations by Program Area,
Fiscal
Years 1992-1997:
(Dollars in thousands).
Program Area: Highway research development and technology.
Safety; 1992: $6,492; 1993: $8,862; 1994: $5,738; 1995: $7,768; 1996:
$8,335; 1997:
$8,650.
Materials; 1992: 3,375; 1993: 5,923; 1994: 3,685; 1995: Highway
research
development and technology: 5,451; 1996: 0; 1997: 0.
Pavements; 1992: 4,186; 1993: 7,278; 1994: 7,259; 1995: 7,476; 1996:
8,791; 1997: 9,731.
Structure; 1992: : 4,187; 1993: 6,203; 1994: 4,860; 1995: 6,311; 1996:
12,558; 1997: 14,362.
Environment; 1992: 2,654; 1993: 4,873; 1994: 4,080; 1995: 5,593; 1996:
5,317; 1997: 5,443.
Right-of-way; 1992: 487; 1993: 487; 1994: 320; 1995: 429; 1996: 408;
1997: 322.
Policy; 1992: 6,072; 1993: 7,797; 1994: 6,689; 1995: 6,681; 1996:
5,401; 1997: 5,328.
Planning; 1992: 1,047; 1993: 2,437; 1994: 4,369; 1995: 6,069; 1996:
5,769; 1997: 5,889.
Motor Carrier; 1992: 0; 1993: 4,183; 1994: 5,345; 1995: 7,774; 1996:
7,390; 1997: 7,399.
Long Term Pavement Performance; 1992: 0; 1993: 0; 1995: 0; 1996: 0;
1997: 10,000.
Subtotal; 1992: $28,500; 1993: $48,043; 1994: $42,525; 1995: $53,552;
1996:
$53,969; 1997: $67,124.
Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems.
Research and development; 1992: $0; 1993: $17,500; 1994: $28,000; 1995:
$35,000; 1996: $49,916; 1997: $28,605.
IVHS operational tests; 1992: 0; 1993: 0; 1994: 15,000; 1995: 22,500;
1996:
31,052; 1997: 54,992.
Commercial vehicle operations; 1992: 1,550; 1993: 0; 1994: 10,000;
1995:
10,700; 1996: 0; 1997: development and technology: 0.
Automated highway system; 1992: 0; 1993: 0; 1994: 10,000; 1995: 10,000;
1996: 0; 1997: 0.
Advance technology applications; 1992: 0; 1993: 0; 1994: 15,000; 1995:
15,000; 1996: 0; 1997: 0.
IVHS program & system support; 1992: 5,750; 1993: 12,500; 1994: 12,300;
1995: 11,300; 1996: 10,034; 1997: 7,761.
Institutional issues program; 1992: 1,500; 1993: 0; 1994: 0; 1995: 0;
1996:
0; 1997: 0.
Advanced traffic management system and advanced traveler information
system; 1992: ; 16,025; 1993: 0; 1994: 0; 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997: 0.
Advanced vehicle control system; 1992: 2,275; 1993: 0; 1994: 0; 1995:
0;
1996: 0; 1997: 0.
Priority corridors; 1992: 0; 1993: 0; 1994: 0; 1995: 10,000; 1996: 0;
1997:
0.
AHS/Advanced crash avoidance; 1992: 0; 1993: 0; 1994: 0; 1995: 0; 1996:
14,000; 1997: 22,000.
Evaluations; 1992: 0; 1993: 0; 1994: 0; 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997:
2,000.
Architecture and standards; 1992: 0; 1993: 0; 1994: 0; 1995: 0; 1996:
0;
1997: 5,000.
Other IVHS activities; 1992: 110,000; 1993: 0; 1994: 0; 1995: 0; 1996:
0;
1997: 0.
Subtotal; 1992: $139,800; 1993: $30,000; 1994: $90,300; 1995: $114,500;
1996: $105,002; 1997: $120,358.
Long-term pavement performance; 1992: $10,000; 1993: $6,000; 1994:
$7,000;
1995: $8,739; 1996: $8,308; 1997: $0.
Technology assessment & deployment; 1992: 8,000; 1993: 8,000; 1994:
12,000; 1995: 12,622; 1996: 12,499; 1997: 13,811.
Local rural technology assistance; 1992: 3,750; 1993: 4,000; 1994:
500; 1995: 3,015; 1996: 2,866; 1997: 2,827.
National Highway Institute; 1992: 3,000; 1993: 4,500; 1994: 4,500;
1995:
4,369; 1996: 4,327; 1997: 4,269.
Multimodal studies; 1992: 4,000; 1993: 3,000; 1994: 0; 1995: 0; 1996:
0;
1997: 0.
Minority/disadvantaged business enterprise; 1992: 8,000; 1993: 8,000;
1994:
10,000; 1995: 10,000; 1996: 9,506; 1997: 9,378.
Highway inventory and user cost; 1992: 0; 1993: 750; 1994: 0; 1995: 0;
1996:
0; 1997: 0.
Highway use tax evasion project; 1992: 1,000; 1993: 0; 1994: 0; 1995:
0;
1996: 0; 1997: 0.
International transportation; 1992: 100; 1993: 250; 1994: 400; 1995:
500; 1996: 475; 1997: 475.
Feasibility, design, environmental studies; 1992: 650; 1993: 0; 1994:
0;
1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997: 0.
On-the-job training, skill training; 1992: 1993: 0; 1994: 0; 1995:
5,000;
1996: 0; 1997: 0.
Russia technical assistance; 1992: 0; 1993: 0; 1994: 0; 1995: 400;
1996:
380; 1997: 200.
Truck dynamic test facility; 1992: 0; 1993: 0; 1994: 0; 1995: 0; 1996:
713; 1997: 0.
Cost allocation study; 1992: 0; 1993: 0; 1994: 0; 1995: 0; 1996: 1,901;
1997: 300.
Transportation investment analysis; 1992: 0; 1993: 0; 1994: 0; 1995: 0;
1996: 0; 1997: 250.
Federal lands contamination site cleanup; 1992: 0; 1993: 0; 1994: 0;
1995:
0; 1996: 0; 1997: 2,466.
Rehabilitation of Turner-Fairbank; 1992: 0; 1993: 1,940; 1994: 1,250;
1995: 3,000; 1996: 0; 1997: 500.
Subtotal all programs; 1992: $206,800; 1993: $114,483; 1994: $168,475;
1995:
$215,697; 1996: $199,946; 1997: $221,958.
Direct contract authority programs[A].
Intelligent transportation systems; 1992: $94,000; 1993: $113,000;
1994:
$113,000; 1995: $113,000; 1996: $97,910; 1997: $113,000.
Local technical assistance program; 1992: 6,000; 1993: 6,000; 1994:
6,000; 1995: 6,000; 1996: 6,000; 1997: 6,000.
University transportation centers; 1992: 5,000; 1993: 6,000; 1994:
6,000; 1995: 6,000; 1996: 6,000; 1997: 6,000.
University research institute; 1992: 6,250; 1993: 6,250; 1994: 6,250;
1995:
6,250; 1996: 6,250; 1997: 6,250.
Strategic highway research program implementation; 1992: 12,000; 1993:
16,000; 1994: 20,000; 1995: 20,000; 1996: 20,000; 1997: 20,000.
Eisenhower transportation fellowship program; 1992: 2,000; 1993: 2,000;
1994:
2,000; 1995: 2,000; 1996: 2,000; 1997: 2,000.
Applied research and technology; 1992: 35,000; 1993: 41,000; 1994:
41,000;
1995: 41,000; 1996: 41,000; 1997: 41,000.
Seismic research and development program; 1992: 2,000; 1993: 2,000;
1994:
2,000; 1995: 2,000; 1996: 2,000; 1997: 2,000.
Fundamental properties of asphalts; 1992: 3,000; 1993: 3,000; 1994:
3,000; 1995: 3,000; 1996: 3,000; 1997: N/A.
Subtotal direct contract authority; 1992: $165,250; 1993: $195,250;
1994:
$199,250; 1995: $199,250; 1996: $184,160; 1997: $196,250.
Total; 1992: $372,050; 1993: $309,733; 1994: $367,725; 1995: $414,947;
1996:
$384,106; 1997: $418,208.
[A] Funding consisted of direct contract authority provided in
authorizing legislation. All other funding in this table was provided
from amounts available for FHWA‘s general operating expenses. Funds
were obligated at 100 percent.
Note: All dollar amounts in this table represent nominal dollars and
have not been adjusted for inflation.
Source: GAO presentation of data from FHWA.
[End of table]
Table 4: Research and Technology Program Allocations by Program Area,
Fiscal
Years 1998-2001:
(Dollars in thousands).
Surface transportation research; 1998: [Empty]; 1999: [Empty]; 2000:
[Empty]; 2001: [Empty].
Safety; 1998: $6,861; 1999: $11,068; 2000: $12,368; 2001: $13,156.
Pavements; 1998: 9,243; 1999: 11,611; 2000: 11,367; 2001: 13,156.
Structure; 1998: 8,447; 1999: 14,216; 2000: 13,065; 2001: 13,156.
Environment; 1998: 2,971; 1999: 4,680; 2000: 5,400; 2001: 5,438.
Policy; 1998: 4,123; 1999: 4,768; 2000: 3,484; 2001: 4,034.
Planning and real estate services; 1998: 5,856; 1999: 3,854; 2000:
3,484; 2001: 3,596.
Motor carrier; 1998: 5,572; 1999: 5,651; 2000: 5,574; 2001: 0.
Technical assessment and deployment; 1998: 10,163; 1999: 12,362; 2000:
12,194; 2001: 12,279.
Research & technology technical support; 1998: 8,711; 1999: 6,623;
2000: 6,533; 2001: 6,578.
Long-term pavement performance; 1998: 10,000; 1999: 8,830; 2000: 8,710;
2001: 8,771.
Advanced research; 1998: 0; 1999: 883; 2000: 784; 2001: 789.
International outreach; 1998: 889; 1999: 442; 2000: 436; 2001: 438.
National advanced driver simulator; 1998: 11,806; 1999: 0; 2000: 0;
2001: 0.
Highway operations/asset management; 1998: 894; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001:
4,561.
Highway operations; 1998: 0; 1999: 662; 2000: 653; 2001: 0.
Freight research and development; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 436; 2001: 0.
Revenue-aligned budget authority; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0.
Subtotal; 1998: $85,536; 1999: $65,650; 2000: $84,488; 2001: $85,952.
Technology deployment program; 1998: [Empty]; 1999: [Empty]; 2000:
[Empty]; 2001: [Empty].
Tech. deployment program; 1998: $31,182; 1999: $30,905; 2000: $34,840;
2001: $39,468.
Revenue aligned budget authority; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0.
Subtotal; 1998: $31,182; 1999: $30,905; 2000: $34,840; 2001: $39,468.
Intelligent transportation systems; 1998: [Empty]; 1999: [Empty]; 2000:
[Empty]; 2001: [Empty].
Research and development; 1998: $40,429; 1999: $33,554; 2000: $41,329;
2001: $40,784.
Operational tests; 1998: 6,580; 1999: 15,011; 2000: 5,792; 2001:
10,367.
Evaluation/program assessment; 1998: 6,000; 1999: 5,740; 2000: 6,097;
2001: 6,797.
Architecture and standards; 1998: 10,662; 1999: 15,894; 2000: 14,284;
2001: 12,060.
Integration; 1998: 10,837; 1999: 5,298; 2000: 10,191; 2001: 9,718.
Program support; 1998: 8,654; 1999: 8,389; 2000: 7,839; 2001: 7,981.
Deployment incentives; 1998: 1,483; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0.
ITS deployment; 1998: 89,991; 1999: 92,715; 2000: 98,423; 2001:
103,494.
Revenue-aligned budget authority-ITS research; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000:
0; 2001: 0.
Revenue-aligned budget authority-ITS deployment; 1998: 0; 1999: 0;
2000: 0; 2001: 0.
Subtotal; 1998: $174,636; 1999: $176,601; 2000: $183,955; 2001:
$191,201.
Training and education; 1998: [Empty]; 1999: [Empty]; 2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty].
Local rural technology assistance; 1998: $6,237; 1999: $6,181; 2000:
$6,968; 2001: $7,894.
National Highway Institute; 1998: 4,455; 1999: 5,298; 2000: 5,226;
2001: 6,139.
Eisenhower fellowship program; 1998: 1,782; 1999: 1,766; 2000: 1,742;
2001: 1,754.
Revenue-aligned budget authority; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0.
Subtotal; 1998: $12,474; 1999: $13,245; 2000: $13,936; 2001: $15,787.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics; 1998: [Empty]; 1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty]; 2001: [Empty].
Bureau of Transportation Statistics; 1998: $31,000; 1999: $31,000;
2000: $31,000; 2001: $30,932.
Revenue-aligned budget authority; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0.
Subtotal; 1998: $31,000; 1999: $31,000; 2000: $31,000; 2001: $30,932.
University transportation centers; 1998: [Empty]; 1999: [Empty]; 2000:
[Empty]; 2001: [Empty].
University transportation centers; 1998: $22,854; 1999: $22,649; 2000:
$23,735; 2001: $23,900.
Revenue-aligned budget authority; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0.
Subtotal; 1998: $22,854; 1999: $22,649; 2000: $23,735; 2001: $23,900.
Total; 1998: $357,685; 1999: $360,050; 2000: $371,954; 2001: $387,240.
Notes: Funds were subjected to the following obligation limitations:
89.1 percent in fiscal year 1998; 88.3 percent in fiscal year 1999;
87.1 percent in fiscal year 2000; and 87.9 percent in fiscal year 2001.
Fiscal year 2001 funds were also reduced by a 0.22 percent rescission
required by P.L. 106-554.
All dollar amounts in this table represent nominal dollars and have not
been adjusted for inflation.
Source: GAO presentation of data from FHWA.
[End of table]
These funds were subject to designations in statutes and committee
reports, with the Infrastructure business unit being the most affected
(see tables 4, 5, and 6 for designations by business unit for fiscal
years 2000 through 2002). In fiscal year 2002, approximately 80 percent
of the surface transportation research and technology deployment funds
provided to the Infrastructure business unit were designated.
Table 4. Surface Transportation Research and Technology Deployment
Funds,
Designations in Statutes and Committee Reports, Fiscal Year 2000:
(Dollars in thousands).
Business Unit: Infrastructure; (Dollars in thousands): Surface
Transportation Research funds designated in authorizing
legislation[A]:
$20,251; Technology Deployment funds designated in authorizing
legislation[A]: $17,420; Technology Deployment funds designated in
appropriations act conference report: $500; Surface Transportation
Research funds designated in appropriations act conference report:
$4,425;
Total designations: $42,596; Designations as percentage of available
Surface
Transportation Research and Technology Deployment funds: 81.3%.
Business Unit: Planning and Environment; (Dollars in thousands):
Surface
Transportation Research funds designated in authorizing
legislation[A]: 975; Technology Deployment funds designated in
authorizing legislation[A]: 5,575; Technology Deployment funds
designated in appropriations act conference report: 0; Surface
Transportation Research funds designated in appropriations act
conference report: 2,475; Total designations: 9,025; Designations as
percentage of available Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Deployment funds: 59.5.
Business Unit: Operations; (Dollars in thousands): Surface
Transportation
Research funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 0; Technology
Deployment funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 2,932;
Technology Deployment funds designated in appropriations act conference
report: 1,000; Surface Transportation Research funds designated in
appropriations act conference report: 0; Total designations: 3,932;
Designations as percentage of available Surface Transportation Research
and Technology Deployment funds: 42.2.
Business Unit: Safety; (Dollars in thousands): Surface Transportation
Research
funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 0; Technology
Deployment
funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 4,050; Technology
Deployment funds designated in appropriations act conference report: 0;
Surface Transportation Research funds designated in appropriations act
conference report: 50; Total designations: 4,100; Designations as
percentage of available Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Deployment funds: 26.6.
Business Unit: Agencywide; (Dollars in thousands): Surface
Transportation
Research funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 436;
Technology
Deployment funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 0;
Technology Deployment funds designated in appropriations act conference
report: 0; Surface Transportation Research funds designated in
appropriations act conference report: 0; Total designations: 436;
Designations as percentage of available Surface Transportation Research
and Technology Deployment funds: 3.0.
[A] Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
Notes: Obligation limitation of 87.1 percent applied to amounts
designated in authorizing legislation; designations of ’up to“ amounts
in reports funded at 50 percent.
All dollar amounts in this table represent nominal dollars and have not
been adjusted for inflation.
Source: GAO presentation of data from FHWA.
[End of table]
Table 5. Surface Transportation Research and Technology Deployment
Funds,
Designations in Statutes and Committee Reports, Fiscal Year 2001:
(Dollars in thousands).
Business Unit: Infrastructure; Surface Transportation Research funds
designated in authorizing legislation[A]: $19,778; Technology
Deployment
funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: $19,778; Surface
Transportation Research funds designated in appropriations act
conference report: $10,100; Technology Deployment funds designated in
appropriations act conference report: $0; Total: $49,656; Designations
as percentage of available Surface Transportation Research and
Technology Deployment funds: 85.1%.
Business Unit: Planning and Environment; Surface Transportation
Research
funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: ; 176; Technology
Deployment
funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: ; 5,626; Surface
Transportation Research funds designated in appropriations act
conference report: ; 1,500; Technology Deployment funds designated in
appropriations act conference report: ; 0; Total: ; 7,302; Designations
as percentage of available Surface Transportation Research and
Technology Deployment funds: ; 42.7.
Business Unit: Operations; Surface Transportation Research funds
designated
in authorizing legislation[A]: 0; Technology Deployment funds
designated
in authorizing legislation[A]: 2,959; Surface Transportation Research
funds designated in appropriations act conference report: 720;
Technology Deployment funds designated in appropriations act conference
report: 800; Total: 4,479; Designations as percentage of available
Surface Transportation Research and Technology Deployment funds: 44.4.
Business Unit: Safety; Surface Transportation Research funds designated
in
authorizing legislation[A]: 0; Technology Deployment funds designated
in
authorizing legislation[A]: 3,472; Surface Transportation Research
funds designated in appropriations act conference report: 2,720;
Technology Deployment funds designated in appropriations act conference
report: 0; Total: 6,192; Designations as percentage of available
Surface Transportation Research and Technology Deployment funds: 34.5.
Business Unit: Agencywide; Surface Transportation Research funds
designated
in authorizing legislation[A]: 440; Technology Deployment funds
designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 0; Surface Transportation
Research funds designated in appropriations act conference report: 0;
Technology Deployment funds designated in appropriations act conference
report: 0; Total: 440; Designations as percentage of available Surface
Transportation Research and Technology Deployment funds: 3.2.
[A] Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
Notes: Obligation limitation of 87.9 percent applied to amounts
designated in authorizing legislation; designations of ’up to“ amounts
in reports funded at 40 percent.
All dollar amounts in this table represent nominal dollars and have not
been adjusted for inflation.
Source: GAO presentation of data from FHWA.
[End of table]
Table 6. Surface Transportation Research and Technology Deployment
Funds,
Designations in Statutes and Committee Reports, Fiscal Year 2002:
(Dollars in thousands).
Business Unit: Infrastructure; (Dollars in thousands): Surface
Transportation Research funds designated in authorizing
legislation[A]:
$20,340; Technology Deployment funds designated in authorizing
legislation
[A]: $19,436; $5,108; $44,884; Designations as percentage of available
Surface Transportation Research and Technology Deployment funds: 80.4%.
Business Unit: Planning and Environment; (Dollars in thousands):
Surface
Transportation Research funds designated in authorizing
legislation[A]: 181; Technology Deployment funds designated in
authorizing legislation[A]: 5,786; 2,034; 8,001; Designations as
percentage of available Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Deployment funds: 39.7.
Business Unit: Operations; (Dollars in thousands): Surface
Transportation
Research funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 0; Technology
Deployment funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 3,044; 904;
3,948; Designations as percentage of available Surface Transportation
Research and Technology Deployment funds: 31.0.
Business Unit: Safety; (Dollars in thousands): Surface Transportation
Research
funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 0; Technology
Deployment
funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 3,571; 1,175; 4,746;
Designations as percentage of available Surface Transportation Research
and Technology Deployment funds: 27.5.
Business Unit: Policy; (Dollars in thousands): Surface Transportation
Research
funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 0; Technology
Deployment
funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 0; 1,808; 1,808;
Designations as percentage of available Surface Transportation Research
and Technology Deployment funds: 24.0.
Business Unit: Agencywide; (Dollars in thousands): Surface
Transportation
Research funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 452;
Technology
Deployment funds designated in authorizing legislation[A]: 0; 542; 994;
Designations as percentage of available Surface Transportation Research
and Technology Deployment funds: 6.3.
[A] Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
Notes: Obligation limitation of 90.4 percent applied to all
designations.
All dollar amounts in this table represent nominal dollars and have not
been adjusted for inflation.
Source: GAO presentation of data from FHWA.
[End of table]
[End of Section]
Appendix 2. Federal Highway Administration Organization Charts.
Figure 3: FHWA‘s Organization Chart before 1998 Restructuring:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO presentation of information from FHWA.
[End of Figure]
Figure 4. FHWA‘s Organization Chart after 1998 Restructuring:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO presentation of information from FHWA.
[End of Figure]
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Transportation Research Board is a unit of the National
Research Council, a private, nonprofit institution that is the
principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the
National Academy of Engineering. The board‘s mission is to promote
innovation and progress in transportation by motivating and conducting
research, facilitating the dissemination of information, and
encouraging the implementation of research results.
[2] Transportation Research Board, The Federal Role in Highway Research
and Technology (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001), p.76.
RTCC was convened in 1991 by the Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies to provide a continuing, independent assessment of
FHWA‘s research and technology program. FHWA provides funding for the
committee.
[3] This report focuses primarily on the Surface Transportation
Research and Technology Deployment activities.
[4] The National Highway Institute is a part of the Professional
Development business unit. It provides professional training to
federal, state, and local highway officials.
[5] As required by Congress, DOT annually develops the departmentwide
’Research, Development, and Technology Plan.“ This plan, drafted by the
Research and Special Programs Administration and funded in part by
FHWA, provides program-level detail on the directions that DOT‘s
research will take. This plan is used by the individual operating
administrations, such as FHWA and the Research and Special Programs
Administration, as a resource document to develop their subsequent
program proposals for inclusion in their administration budgets.
[6] These are the most recent available data.
[7] The University Transportation Centers were created to advance U.S.
technology and expertise in many disciplines related to transportation
through education, research, and technology transfer programs at
university-level centers.
[8] Transportation Research Board, The Federal Role in Highway Research
and Technology (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001), p. 76.
For surface transportation research, potential stakeholders include
state and local highway agencies that own and operate the nation‘s
highways; highway users; the companies that furnish the products,
services, and equipment needed to build, operate, and maintain the
highway system; and the people and communities that benefit from and
are affected by the system.
[9] Federal Research: Peer Review Practices at Federal Science Agencies
Vary (GAO/RCED-99-99, Mar. 1999), p. 2.
[10] GAO/RCED-99-99.
[11] Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy,
Evaluating Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government
Performance and Results Act (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1999), p. 39. The
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy is a joint
committee of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
[12] The 1993 Government Performance and Results Act requires
federal agencies to set strategic goals and establish performance
measures for management.
[13] The Transportation Research Board‘s RTCC has recognized
roadmapping as an important tool for research and technology priority
setting and programming. Roadmapping is a ’reverse engineering“ process
in which specific, desired research and technology outcomes are
identified and the means to accomplish these outcomes are determined.
This ’backward planning“ process was designed to enable FHWA to define
how funds are used and to better understand its research and technology
priorities and responsibilities.
[14] Transportation Research Board, The Federal Role in Highway
Research and Technology (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,
2001), p. 83.
[15] The National Highway Research and Technology Partnership Forum
was initiated in 1998 by FHWA, the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Transportation Research
Board. Its purpose is to better coordinate investments among highway
research and technology programs in a manner that involves the diverse
array of highway transportation stakeholders. The forum has no official
standing and relies entirely on volunteer participation. Hundreds of
individuals and more than 160 organizations have participated in this
initiative.
[16] If calculated based upon available funds subject to obligation
limitations, the percentages would be significantly higher.
[17] Rumble strips are milled or rolled-in grooves on a road‘s
shoulder that create a noise and slight vibration felt by the driver
when a vehicle leaves the roadway.
[18] Transportation Research Board, The Federal Role in Highway
Research and Technology, p. 88.
[19] The dollar amounts in this section, unless otherwise noted,
are adjusted to 2001 dollars.
[20] A limitation on obligations acts as a ceiling on the
obligations of authorized funds that can be made within a specified
time period, usually a fiscal year. Congress relies on limitations on
obligations to control program spending and to make it more responsive
to prevailing budget and economic policy. Limitations on obligations
are included in the annual appropriations act for DOT.
[21] The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 established the Intelligent
Vehicle Highway Systems Program--later renamed the Intelligent
Transportation Systems Program--prescribing the ’widespread
implementation of intelligent transportation systems to enhance the
capacity, efficiency, and safety of the federal-aid highway system and
to serve as an alternative to additional physical capacity of the
federal-aid highway system.“
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548
