Highway Research
DOT's Actions to Implement Best Practices for Setting Research Agendas and Evaluating Outcomes Gao ID: GAO-03-640T April 10, 2003Improvement and innovation based on highway research have long been important to the highway system. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the primary federal agency involved in highway research. Throughout the past decade, FHWA received hundreds of millions of dollars for its surface transportation research program, including nearly half of the Department of Transportation's approximate $1 billion budget for research in fiscal year 2002. Given the expectations of highway research and the level of resources dedicated to it, it is important to know that FHWA is conducting high quality research that is relevant and useful. In May 2002, GAO issued a report on these issues and made recommendations to FHWA, which the agency agreed with, aimed at improving its processes for setting research agendas and evaluating its research efforts. GAO was asked to testify on (1) best practices for developing research agendas and evaluating research outcomes for federal research programs; (2) how FHWA's processes for developing research agendas align with these best practices; and (3) how FHWA's processes for evaluating research outcomes align with these best practices.
Leading organizations, federal agencies, and experts that conduct scientific and engineering research use best practices designed to ensure that research objectives are related to the areas of greatest interest to research users and that research is evaluated according to these objectives. Of the specific best practices recommended by experts--such as the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy and the National Science Foundation--GAO identified the following practices as particularly relevant for FHWA: (1) developing research agendas in consultation with external stakeholders to identify high-value research and (2) using a systematic approach to evaluate research through such techniques as peer review. FHWA's processes for developing its research agendas do not always consistently include stakeholder involvement. External stakeholder involvement is important for FHWA because its research is to be used by others that manage and construct transportation systems. FHWA acknowledges that its approach for developing research agendas lacks a systematic process to ensure that external stakeholders are involved. In response to GAO's recommendation, FHWA has drafted plans that take the necessary steps toward developing a systematic process for involving external stakeholders. While the plans appear responsive to GAO's recommendation, GAO cannot evaluate their effectiveness until they are implemented. FHWA does not have a systematic process that incorporates techniques such as peer review for evaluating research outcomes. Instead, the agency primarily uses a "success story" approach to communicate about those research projects that have positive impacts. As a result, it is unclear the extent to which all research projects have achieved their objectives. FHWA acknowledges that it must do more to measure the performance of its research program, however, it is still in the process of developing a framework for this purpose. While FHWA's initial plans appear responsive to GAO's recommendation, GAO cannot evaluate their effectiveness until they are implemented.
GAO-03-640T, Highway Research: DOT's Actions to Implement Best Practices for Setting Research Agendas and Evaluating Outcomes
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-640T
entitled 'Highway Research: DOT's Actions to Implement Best Practices
for Setting Research Agendas and Evaluating Outcomes' which was
released on April 10, 2003.
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 text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of 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 the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology and Standards, House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, April 10, 2003:
Highway Research:
DOT‘s Actions to Implement Best Practices for Setting Research Agendas
and Evaluating Outcomes:
Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Acting Director
Physical Infrastructure Team:
Highway Research:
GAO-03-640T:
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because
this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission
from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce
this material separately.
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-640T, a report to House Committee on Science,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards
Why GAO Did This Study:
Improvement and innovation based on highway research have long been
important to the highway system. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) is the primary federal agency involved in highway research.
Throughout the past decade, FHWA received hundreds of millions of
dollars for its surface transportation research program, including
nearly half of the Department of Transportation‘s approximate $1
billion budget for research in fiscal year 2002. Given the
expectations of highway research and the level of resources dedicated
to it, it is important to know that FHWA is conducting high quality
research that is relevant and useful. In May 2002, GAO issued a report
on these issues and made recommendations to FHWA, which the agency
agreed with, aimed at improving its processes for setting research
agendas and evaluating its research efforts.
GAO was asked to testify on (1) best practices for developing research
agendas and evaluating research outcomes for federal research programs;
(2) how FHWA‘s processes for developing research agendas align with
these best practices; and (3) how FHWA‘s processes for evaluating
research outcomes align with these best practices.
What GAO Found:
Leading organizations, federal agencies, and experts that conduct
scientific and engineering research use best practices designed to
ensure that research objectives are related to the areas of greatest
interest to research users and that research is evaluated according to
these objectives. Of the specific best practices recommended by
experts”such as the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public
Policy and the National Science Foundation”GAO identified the following
practices as particularly relevant for FHWA: (1) developing research
agendas in consultation with external stakeholders to identify high-
value research and (2) using a systematic approach to evaluate research
through such techniques as peer review.
FHWA‘s processes for developing its research agendas do not always
consistently include stakeholder involvement. External stakeholder
involvement is important for FHWA because its research is to be used
by others that manage and construct transportation systems. FHWA
acknowledges that its approach for developing research agendas lacks a
systematic process to ensure that external stakeholders are involved.
In response to GAO‘s recommendation, FHWA has drafted plans that take
the necessary steps toward developing a systematic process for
involving external stakeholders. While the plans appear responsive to
GAO‘s recommendation, as shown in the table below, GAO cannot evaluate
their effectiveness until they are implemented.
FHWA does not have a systematic process that incorporates techniques
such as peer review for evaluating research outcomes. Instead, the
agency primarily uses a ’success story“ approach to communicate about
those research projects that have positive impacts. As a result, it is
unclear the extent to which all research projects have achieved their
objectives. FHWA acknowledges that it must do more to measure the
performance of its research program, however, it is still in the
process of developing a framework for this purpose. While FHWA‘s
initial plans appear responsive to GAO‘s recommendation, GAO cannot
evaluate their effectiveness until they are implemented.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-03-640T.
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Katherine Siggerud at
(202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
We appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the Federal Highway
Administration‘s (FHWA) surface transportation research and technology
program. Change, improvement, and innovation based on highway research
have long been important to the highway system. While this research is
a shared responsibility among FHWA, state departments of
transportation, and private organizations, we focused on FHWA‘s
important leadership role as the primary federal agency involved in
highway research. Throughout the past decade, FHWA has received
hundreds of millions of dollars for its surface transportation research
and technology program, including nearly half of the Department of
Transportation‘s (DOT) approximate $1 billion budget for research,
development, and technology in fiscal year 2002. Given the important
expectations of highway research and the significant level of resources
dedicated to it, it is important for the Congress and the American
people to know that the agency is conducting research that is relevant
and useful to stakeholders and that is of high quality. In May 2002 we
issued a report on these issues and made recommendations to FHWA, which
the agency agreed with, aimed at improving its processes for setting
research agendas and evaluating its research efforts.[Footnote 1] As it
considers reauthorizing FHWA‘s research and technology program,
Congress will be making decisions about the structure of the program.
Accordingly, my testimony today will discuss (1) best practices for
developing research agendas and evaluating research outcomes for
federal research programs; (2) the extent to which FHWA‘s processes for
developing research agendas align with the best practices for similar
federal research programs; and (3) the extent to which FHWA‘s processes
for evaluating research outcomes align with these best practices.
My statement is based in part on our May 2002 report, which focused
primarily on those activities funded by the surface transportation
research and technology deployment funding categories identified in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. In developing that
report, we held discussions with FHWA officials and reviewed relevant
program documents, legislation, and publications on best practices in
federal research from the Transportation Research Board, the Committee
on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy and others. In preparing for
this hearing, we also updated FHWA‘s activities in response to our
findings and recommendations.
In summary:
* 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 designed
to ensure that research objectives are related to the areas of greatest
interest and concern to research users and that research is evaluated
according to these objectives. Specific best practices in these areas
used in other federal research programs or recommended by experts--such
as the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy[Footnote
2], the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science
Foundation, and the Office of Management and Budget--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.
:
* As we reported last year, FHWA‘s processes for developing research
agendas for its research and technology program do not always
consistently include stakeholder involvement. External stakeholder
involvement is important for FHWA because its research is expected to
be used by others, such as state departments of transportation, which
manage and construct transportation systems. FHWA acknowledges that its
approach for developing research agendas lacks a consistent,
transparent, and systematic process to ensure that external
stakeholders are involved. Instead, the agency expects each program
office to determine how or whether to involve external stakeholders in
the agenda setting process. As a result, this approach is used
inconsistently. To improve its program and in response to our
recommendations, FHWA has drafted plans that seem to take the necessary
steps toward developing a systematic process for involving external
stakeholders in the agenda setting process. FHWA‘s plans have not been
finalized, and we cannot comment on the potential effectiveness of
these plans.
:
* We reported last year that FHWA does not have a systematic process
that incorporates techniques such as peer review for evaluating
research outcomes. Instead, the agency primarily uses a ’success story“
approach to evaluate and communicate its research outcomes. While this
approach illustrates some benefits of the agency‘s research, 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, it
is unclear whether the organization is selecting research projects that
have the highest potential value, or the extent to which these projects
have achieved their objectives. We recommended that FHWA develop a
systematic approach to evaluating its research program, and noted peer
review as a best practice for doing so. In response, FHWA agreed that
the agency must do a better job to measure the performance of its
research and technology program. However, currently it is still in the
process of developing, defining, and adopting a framework for measuring
performance. Therefore, we cannot yet comment on FHWA‘s efforts to
evaluate research outcomes.
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 program offices 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.
FHWA‘s research and technology program is based on the research and
technology needs of each of its program offices such as the Offices of
Infrastructure, Safety, or Policy. Each of the program offices 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. (See
Appendix I for examples of research that these offices undertake.) One
program office that is located at FHWA‘s research facility provides
support for administering the overall program and conducts some of the
research. The agency‘s leadership team, consisting of the associate
administrators of the program offices and other FHWA offices, provides
periodic oversight of the overall program. In 2002 FHWA appointed the
Director of its Office of Research, Development, and Technology as the
focal point for achieving the agency‘s national performance objective
of increasing the effectiveness of all FHWA program offices, as well as
its partners and stakeholders, in determining research priorities and
deploying technologies and innovation.
In addition to the research activities within FHWA, the agency
collaborates with other DOT agencies to conduct research and technology
activities. 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 3] Other
nonfederal research and technology organizations also conduct research
funded by FHWA related to highways and bridges. Among these are state
research and technology programs that address technical questions
associated with the planning, design, construction, rehabilitation, and
maintenance of highways. In addition, 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. Private organizations, including 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, also
conduct or sponsor individual programs. Universities receive funding
for research on surface transportation from FHWA, the states, and the
private sector.
Research Community Promotes Use of Best Practices for Developing
Research Agendas and Evaluating Research Outcomes:
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 (1) developing research agendas
through the involvement of external stakeholders and (2) evaluation of
research using techniques such as expert review of the quality of
research outcomes.
Developing Research Agendas Through the Involvement of External
Stakeholders:
External stakeholder involvement is 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 the
Transportation Research Board‘s Research and Technology Coordinating
Committee,[Footnote 4] 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 5]
The committee also identified merit review of research proposals by
independent technical experts based on technical criteria 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 6] In
April 2002, the Office of Management and Budget issued investment
criteria for federal research and technology program budgets that urge
these agencies to put into place processes to assure the relevance,
quality and performance of their programs. For example, the guidance
requires these programs to have agendas that are assessed prospectively
and retrospectively through external review to ensure that funds are
being expended on quality research efforts.
Evaluation of Research Using Systematic Approach to Review the Quality
of Research Outcomes:
The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy reported in
1999 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. Nevertheless, 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. Similarly, in April 2002 the Office of Management and
Budget issued investment criteria for federal research and technology
program budgets that require these programs to define appropriate
outcome measures and milestones that can be used to track progress
toward goals and assess whether funding should be enhanced or
redirected. In addition, program quality should be assessed
periodically in relation to these criteria through retrospective expert
review. The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy also
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.
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 7] In its
1999 report, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
also stated that expert review is widely used to evaluate: (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 FHWA‘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 consistent and
transparent basis in setting its research agendas. The agency expects
each program office to determine how or whether to involve external
stakeholders in the agenda setting process. As we reported in May 2002,
FHWA acknowledges that its approach to preparing research agendas is
inconsistent and that the associate administrators of FHWA‘s program
offices primarily use input from the agency‘s program offices, resource
centers, and division offices.[Footnote 8] Although agency officials
told us that resource center and division office staff provide the
associate administrators with input based on their interactions with
external stakeholders, to the extent that external stakeholder input
into developing research agendas occurs, it is usually ad hoc and
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).
In our May 2002 report we recommended that FHWA develop a systematic
approach for obtaining input from external stakeholders in determining
its research and technology program‘s agendas. FHWA concurred with our
recommendation and has taken steps to develop such an approach. FHWA
formed a planning group consisting of internal stakeholders as well as
representatives from the Research and Special Programs Administration
and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to determine how to
implement our recommendation. This planning group prepared a report
analyzing the approaches that four other federal agencies are taking to
involve external stakeholders in setting their research and technology
program agendas. Using the lessons learned from reviewing these other
agencies‘ activities, FHWA has drafted a Corporate Master Plan for
Research and Deployment of Technology & Innovation. Under the draft
plan, the agency would be required to establish specific steps for
including external stakeholders in the agenda setting process for all
areas of research throughout the agency‘s research and technology
program by fiscal year 2004. In drafting this plan, FHWA officials
obtained input from internal stakeholders as well as external
stakeholders, including state departments of transportation, academia,
consultants, and members of the Transportation Research Board. It
appears that FHWA has committed to taking the necessary steps to adopt
the best practice of developing a systematic process for involving
external stakeholders in the agenda setting process. The draft plan
invites external stakeholders to assist FHWA with such activities as
providing focus and direction to the research and technology program
and setting the program‘s agendas and priorities. However, because
FHWA‘s plan has not been finalized, we cannot comment on its potential
effectiveness in involving external stakeholders.
FHWA Lacks a Systematic Approach to Evaluating Research Outcomes:
As we reported last year, FHWA does not have an agency wide systematic
process to evaluate whether its research projects are achieving
intended results that uses such techniques as peer review. Although the
agency‘s program offices may use methods such as obtaining feedback
from customers and evaluating outputs or outcomes versus milestones,
they all use success stories as the primary method to evaluate and
communicate research outcomes. According to agency officials, success
stories are examples of research results adopted or implemented by such
stakeholders as state departments of transportation. These officials
told us that success stories can document the financial returns on
investment and nonmonetary benefits of research and technology efforts.
However, we raised concerns that success stories are selective and do
not cover the breadth of FHWA‘s research and technology program.
In 2001, the Transportation Research Board‘s Research and Technology
Coordinating Committee concluded that peer or expert review is an
appropriate way to evaluate FHWA‘s surface transportation research and
technology program. 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.
In our May 2002 report, we recommended that FHWA 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.[Footnote 9] While FHWA has concurred
that the agency must measure the performance of its research and
technology program, it has not developed, defined or adopted a
framework for measuring performance. FHWA‘s report on efforts of other
federal agencies that conduct research, discussed above, analyzed the
approaches that four other federal agencies are taking to evaluate
their research and technology programs using these best practices.
According to FHWA‘s assistant director for Research, Technology, and
Innovation Deployment, the agency is using the results of this report
to develop its own systematic approach for evaluating its research and
technology program. However, this official noted that FHWA has been
challenged to find the most useful and effective ways to evaluate the
performance and results of the agency‘s research and technology
program. According to FHWA‘s draft Corporate Master Plan for Research
and Deployment of Technology & Innovation, FHWA is committed to
developing a systematic method of evaluating its research and
technology program that includes the use of a merit review panel. This
panel would conduct evaluations and reviews in collaboration with
representatives from FHWA staff, technical experts, peers, special
interest groups, senior management, and contracting officers. According
to the draft plan, these merit reviews would be conducted on a periodic
basis for program-level and agency-level evaluations, while merit
reviews at the project level would depend on the project‘s size and
complexity. FHWA is still in the process of developing, defining, and
adopting a framework for measuring performance. Therefore, we cannot
yet comment on how well FHWA‘s efforts to evaluate research outcomes
will follow established best practices.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or Members of the Committee may have.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information on this testimony, please contact Katherine
Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Deena Richart made key
contributions to this testimony.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Roles of Program Offices in FHWA‘s Research and Technology
Program:
FHWA‘s research and technology program is based on the research and
technology needs of each of its program offices such as the Offices of
Infrastructure, Safety, and Policy. Each of the program offices 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. (See
table 1.):
Table 1: Roles of Program Offices in Research and Technology:
Program office name: Federal Lands Highway; Role in research and
technology: Development of applied research and technology applicable
to transportation systems serving federal lands.; Examples of
research and technology projects: Road Surface Analyzer (ROSAN)
measurement of pavement smoothness.
Program office 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 research and technology projects: Long-term
pavement performance.; Concrete research and technology.;
Innovative bridge technology.
Program office 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 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.
Program office 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
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.
Program office 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 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.“.
Program office 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 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.
Program office 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
research and technology projects: Research activities to support
Infrastructure, Operations, and Safety units.
Source: GAO‘s presentation of information provided by FHWA.
[End of table]
FOOTNOTES
[1] Highway Research: Systematic Selection and Evaluation Processes
Needed for Research Program (GAO-02-573, May 2002).
[2] Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Evaluating
Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and
Results Act (Washington, DC: Feb. 1999). 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.
[3] As required by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century,
DOT annually develops the department wide ’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.
[4] The Research and Technology Coordinating Committee 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.
[5] 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.
[6] Federal Research: Peer Review Practices at Federal Science Agencies
Vary (GAO/RCED-99-99, Mar. 1999), p. 2.
[7] GAO/RCED-99-99.
[8] FHWA has 4 resource centers throughout the country, and division
offices in each state, Puerto Rico and District of Columbia.
[9] GAO-02-573.
