Highway Research
The Second Strategic Highway Research Program Addresses the Four Required Areas, but Some Anticipated Research Was Not Funded Gao ID: GAO-10-248 February 5, 2010The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users authorized the Department of Transportation to establish a highway research program to address future challenges facing the U.S. highway system. In 2006, the Second Strategic Highway Research Program was established to conduct research in four areas--safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity. The Transportation Research Board manages this program in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration and others. The legislation also required GAO to review the program no later than 3 years after the first research contracts were awarded. This report provides information about the process for selecting the program's projects for funding, the projects' status, and what, if any, research was eliminated because of funding and time constraints. To address our objectives, GAO reviewed the program's authorizing legislation, analyzed studies and reports related to the program and its projects, and interviewed officials from relevant transportation agencies and organizations. GAO is not making recommendations in this report. The Department of Transportation and the Transportation Research Board reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated, as appropriate.
The program's oversight committee funded research projects based on the recommendations of its four technical coordinating committees of experts (one for each of the four research areas), which considered the input of other experts and factors, such as available program funds and time frames. Prior to the program's establishment, detailed research plans were developed by panels of experts in 2003 that identified 106 possible research projects. However, these research plans were significantly modified on two occasions--in 2006, when less funding and time were provided for completing the program than had been assumed in 2003, and in 2008, when about $20 million in additional program funding became available. On both occasions, the program's oversight committee relied on experts to prioritize and recommend projects for funding. As a result of this process, 56 of the 106 projects either evolved into, or were partially merged with, one or more of the currently funded projects, while 50 projects were eliminated entirely. As of December 31, 2009, the program's oversight committee had allocated about $123 million of the approximately $171 million available to fund 85 projects in the four research areas of highway safety (40 percent), renewal (26 percent), reliability (16 percent), and capacity (17 percent). These funding allocations closely followed the overall funding percentages recommended by the Transportation Research Board in 2001. Of the 85 funded projects, 11 were completed, 52 were ongoing, 22 were anticipated, and all of the projects were expected to be completed by 2013. The outcomes are expected to vary by research area, ranging from useful data sets and related analyses to improved technologies, guidelines, and techniques for advancing the goals of each research area. Among other outcomes, the program staff expects: (1) the safety research will produce the largest, most comprehensive database on driver behavior available to date and, thus, provide the foundation for significant improvements in highway safety; (2) the renewal research will produce a variety of tools and techniques to promote rapid and durable highway renewal; (3) the reliability research will develop methods to provide highway users with relatively more consistent travel times between locations; and (4) the capacity research will provide strategies for better decision making in highway planning processes to increase the capacity of U.S. highways. Because of funding and time constraints, 50 of the 106 research projects identified in 2003 were eliminated entirely from funding, while many of the remaining 56 projects had one or more portions of their planned research eliminated. Overall, most of the funded projects are for applied research, but many of the implementation-related activities identified in 2003 were eliminated. While activities to (1) translate research results into products, (2) train and disseminate research findings, and (3) provide technical support for implementing the research are often needed to widely implement research results, program staff are hopeful that other researchers will initiate some of the eliminated research activities after the program's completion.
GAO-10-248, Highway Research: The Second Strategic Highway Research Program Addresses the Four Required Areas, but Some Anticipated Research Was Not Funded
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-248
entitled 'Highway Research: The Second Strategic Highway Research
Program Addresses the Four Required Areas, but Some Anticipated
Research Was Not Funded' which was released on February 5, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
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. 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.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
February 2010:
Highway Research:
The Second Strategic Highway Research Program Addresses the Four
Required Areas, but Some Anticipated Research Was Not Funded:
GAO-10-248:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-248, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users authorized the Department of Transportation to
establish a highway research program to address future challenges
facing the U.S. highway system. In 2006, the Second Strategic Highway
Research Program was established to conduct research in four areas”
safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity. The Transportation
Research Board manages this program in cooperation with the Federal
Highway Administration and others.
The legislation also required GAO to review the program no later than
3 years after the first research contracts were awarded. This report
provides information about the process for selecting the program‘s
projects for funding, the projects‘ status, and what, if any, research
was eliminated because of funding and time constraints. To address our
objectives, GAO reviewed the program‘s authorizing legislation,
analyzed studies and reports related to the program and its projects,
and interviewed officials from relevant transportation agencies and
organizations.
GAO is not making recommendations in this report. The Department of
Transportation and the Transportation Research Board reviewed a draft
of this report and provided technical clarifications, which we
incorporated, as appropriate.
What GAO Found:
The program‘s oversight committee funded research projects based on
the recommendations of its four technical coordinating committees of
experts (one for each of the four research areas), which considered
the input of other experts and factors, such as available program
funds and time frames. Prior to the program‘s establishment, detailed
research plans were developed by panels of experts in 2003 that
identified 106 possible research projects. However, these research
plans were significantly modified on two occasions”in 2006, when less
funding and time were provided for completing the program than had
been assumed in 2003, and in 2008, when about $20 million in
additional program funding became available. On both occasions, the
program‘s oversight committee relied on experts to prioritize and
recommend projects for funding. As a result of this process, 56 of the
106 projects either evolved into, or were partially merged with, one
or more of the currently funded projects, while 50 projects were
eliminated entirely.
As of December 31, 2009, the program‘s oversight committee had
allocated about $123 million of the approximately $171 million
available to fund 85 projects in the four research areas of highway
safety (40 percent), renewal (26 percent), reliability (16 percent),
and capacity (17 percent). These funding allocations closely followed
the overall funding percentages recommended by the Transportation
Research Board in 2001. Of the 85 funded projects, 11 were completed,
52 were ongoing, 22 were anticipated, and all of the projects were
expected to be completed by 2013. The outcomes are expected to vary by
research area, ranging from useful data sets and related analyses to
improved technologies, guidelines, and techniques for advancing the
goals of each research area. Among other outcomes, the program staff
expects:
* the safety research will produce the largest, most comprehensive
database on driver behavior available to date and, thus, provide the
foundation for significant improvements in highway safety;
* the renewal research will produce a variety of tools and techniques
to promote rapid and durable highway renewal;
* the reliability research will develop methods to provide highway
users with relatively more consistent travel times between locations;
and;
* the capacity research will provide strategies for better decision
making in highway planning processes to increase the capacity of U.S.
highways.
Because of funding and time constraints, 50 of the 106 research
projects identified in 2003 were eliminated entirely from funding,
while many of the remaining 56 projects had one or more portions of
their planned research eliminated. Overall, most of the funded
projects are for applied research, but many of the implementation-
related activities identified in 2003 were eliminated. While
activities to (1) translate research results into products, (2) train
and disseminate research findings, and (3) provide technical support
for implementing the research are often needed to widely implement
research results, program staff are hopeful that other researchers
will initiate some of the eliminated research activities after the
program‘s completion.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-248] or key
components. For more information, contact David Wise at (202) 512-2834
or wised@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
SHRP 2 Research Projects Were Selected Based on Expert Input and
Program Funding and Time Frames:
The SHRP 2 Oversight Committee Allocated about $123 Million for 85
Projects: 63 Are Completed or Ongoing and 22 Are Planned:
Because of Funding and Time Constraints, 50 of the 106 Projects
Identified in 2003 Were Eliminated Entirely, while Many of the
Remaining 56 Projects Had Portions of Their Planned Research
Eliminated:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Safety Research Projects:
Appendix III: Renewal Research Projects:
Appendix IV: Reliability Research Projects:
Appendix V: Capacity Research Projects:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Timeline of Key Events Related to SHRP 2:
Table 2: Amount and Duration of SHRP 2 Funding, as of December 31,
2009:
Table 3: Information on the Number of Projects Identified in 2003 That
Evolved or Merged to Form a SHRP 2 Project or Were Eliminated:
Table 4: Recommended and Actual Funding Levels and Percentages of
Funding for the Four Research Areas, as of December 31, 2009:
Table 5: How Safety Projects Identified in 2003 Were Reprioritized for
Funding:
Table 6: The 16 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Safety Projects, as of
December 31, 2009:
Table 7: How Renewal Projects Identified in 2003 Were Reprioritized
for Funding:
Table 8: The 28 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Renewal Projects, as of
December 31, 2009:
Table 9: How Reliability Projects Identified in 2003 Were
Reprioritized for Funding:
Table 10: The 21 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Reliability Projects, as of
December 31, 2009:
Table 11: How Capacity Projects Identified in 2003 Were Reprioritized
for Funding:
Table 12: The 20 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Capacity Projects, as of
December 31, 2009:
Figures:
Figure 1: Allocation for SHRP 2 Funding, as of December 31, 2009:
Figure 2: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Safety Projects:
Figure 3: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Renewal Projects:
Figure 4: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Reliability
Projects:
Figure 5: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Capacity Projects:
Abbreviations:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
TRB: Transportation Research Board:
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users:
SHRP: Strategic Highway Research Program:
SHRP 2: Second Strategic Highway Research Program:
TCC: Technical Coordinating Committee:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 5, 2010:
Congressional Committees:
As the United States entered the 21st century, the nation's highway
infrastructure and transportation system faced critical challenges
that demanded practical solutions. The highway system is the backbone
of the U.S. economy and provides passenger and freight links to all
other modes of transportation. However, the network of U.S. roadways,
bridges, and other related structures constituting the system has been
in constant use for decades, often exceeding original design life and
expected traffic volumes. As a result, the system is deteriorating and
has become heavily congested. For example, the average age of a bridge
in the inventory of bridges nationwide is 35 years, and about a
quarter of them are considered either structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete.[Footnote 1] Also, increased traffic congestion
causes travel disruptions and delays that, in 2007, cost travelers
about $87 billion and an estimated 4.2 billion additional travel
hours.[Footnote 2] Furthermore, the number of deaths and injuries each
year from highway accidents--the leading cause of death in 2006 for
all persons between 3 and 34 years of age--constitute a major public
health concern.[Footnote 3]
Research and innovation play an important role in addressing the
challenges of managing and using the highway system. Research efforts
generally focus on incremental improvements that address a wide range
of highway challenges and lead to a variety of user benefits across
the highway system, including (1) lower construction and maintenance
costs, (2) better system performance, (3) added highway capacity, (4)
reduced highway fatalities and injuries, and (5) reduced adverse
environmental impacts. In contrast, strategic highway research
programs are designed to focus on fewer highway challenges and
typically result in more rapid and significant transportation-related
improvements.
To address challenges facing the nation's highway infrastructure and
transportation system and develop potential solutions to those
challenges, in 1998, Congress requested the Transportation Research
Board (TRB), a unit of the National Research Council within the
National Academy of Sciences, to conduct a study for creating a
strategic highway research program.[Footnote 4] TRB conducted the
study and, in 2001, issued Special Report 260: Strategic Highway
Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life
(Special Report 260), which concluded that a large-scale, special-
purpose, and limited-duration research program focused on four
research areas--safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity--could help
the highway system meet customer demands over the next several
decades.[Footnote 5] To advance such a program, in 2002, the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and the states' departments of transportation funded work to
develop detailed research plans and specific projects for carrying out
each of the four areas outlined in Special Report 260.[Footnote 6] The
results of this effort were completed and published in 2003.[Footnote
7] In addition, section 5210 of the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
authorized the creation of the Future Strategic Highway Research
Program.[Footnote 8] SAFETEA-LU required that the program focus on the
four research and development areas specified in Special Report 260
(i.e., highway safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity) and tasked
DOT with establishing and carrying out the program through the
National Research Council. The resulting program, initiated in 2006,
is referred to as the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP
2). The program is managed by TRB in cooperation with FHWA, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
[Footnote 9]
SAFETEA-LU directed us to review SHRP 2 no later than 3 years after
the first contracts for research projects were awarded. This occurred
on February 5, 2007. This report provides information about (1) the
process for selecting SHRP 2 projects for funding, (2) the status of
these projects, and (3) what, if any, planned research was eliminated
from the program because of funding and time constraints. To address
these issues, we reviewed the program's authorizing legislation,
requirements, goals, and objectives. We also reviewed and analyzed
literature, studies, and reports related to SHRP 2, and available
agency and program documentation on the SHRP 2 research projects that
were funded or identified for funding in the 2003 detailed research
plans, as well as the revised plans for reprioritizing project for
funding. In addition, we compared the current SHRP 2 projects with the
four research areas identified in Special Report 260 and the projects
identified in the 2003 detailed research plans to identify projects
that were partially or fully eliminated from program funding. Finally,
we interviewed officials from DOT, FHWA, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, the National Research Council, TRB, and AASHTO.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 through February
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See
appendix I for more information about our scope and methodology.
Background:
Research and innovation play an important role in addressing issues
associated with building, maintaining, operating, and using the U.S.
highway system. Highway research is an essential national investment
because it helps address broad issues related to highway planning,
safety, traffic operations, pavement durability, maintenance, and the
impact of the highway system on the environment. In addition, research
helps transportation professionals to (1) understand how the highway
transportation system functions and (2) anticipate future demands.
Past research has yielded many advances and innovations that have
saved money, improved performance, added capacity, reduced fatalities
and injuries, and minimized the impact of the highway system on the
environment.[Footnote 10] For example, in the late 1950s, the American
Association of State Highway Officials sponsored research, called the
AASHO Road Test, to study how traffic contributes to the deterioration
of highway pavements.[Footnote 11] This research, which contributed to
the creation of nationwide design standards for the new Interstate
highway system, was designed to complement existing highway research
programs and is credited with critical advances related to the
structural design and performance of pavements, and to understanding
the effects of various climates on pavements.
While highway research has resulted in transportation advances,
implementing research results can be difficult because of the number
of stakeholders involved. The network of highway transportation
stakeholders is large and complex, consisting of federal and state
transportation agencies, universities, industry associations, and
private organizations. In total, more than 35,000 highly decentralized
public agencies manage the U.S. highway system, and thousands of
private contractors, materials suppliers, and other organizations
provide support services. The federal government supports highway
research through FHWA, whose mission, in part, is to deploy and
implement technology and promote the use of innovative approaches to
address highway challenges. For example, to enhance mobility on U.S.
highways, FHWA conducts and funds research on current and emerging
nationwide transportation issues to, among other matters, enhance the
transportation system's overall performance; reduce traffic
congestion; improve safety; and maintain infrastructure integrity.
However, according to a report issued by TRB in 2001, the majority of
FHWA's highway research focuses on short-term, incremental
transportation-related improvements.[Footnote 12] Although
transportation agencies are generally responsive to implementing small
innovations with the promise of short-term benefits, according to this
report, it takes considerably longer to implement changes that realize
large, long-term benefits.
Although the establishment of a national strategic highway research
program, like SHRP 2, has been rare, it is not unprecedented.
Specifically, in 1987, Congress established the first Strategic
Highway Research Program (SHRP) to achieve large-scale, accelerated,
and innovative highway research on topics not adequately addressed by
prior or existing research programs.[Footnote 13] SHRP focused on a
few critical infrastructure and operational problems faced by state
transportation agencies, such as the quality of asphalt used in
highway construction, the integrity and longevity of road pavements,
and the deterioration of concrete bridge decks and other components.
The program, concluded in 1991, was considered ambitious because of
its limited duration and its concentration on previously neglected
research areas related to asphalt pavements, structural concrete, and
winter maintenance. Two of the better known and more widely
implemented results of SHRP are (1) the Superpave materials selection
and design system, which resulted in more durable asphalt pavements,
and (2) a collection of methods and technologies that significantly
improved approaches for controlling snow and ice on roadways.
The success of SHRP prompted Congress and others to take several key
steps that, ultimately, led to the establishment of SHRP 2. Table 1
provides a timeline of key events related to SHRP 2.
Table 1: Timeline of Key Events Related to SHRP 2:
Date: 1998;
Event: The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century reauthorized
the federal-aid highway program and requested TRB to study the
feasibility of creating a new strategic highway research program.
Date: 2001;
Event: TRB issued Special Report 260.
Date: 2002;
Event: AASHTO's board of directors passed a resolution supporting a
new national strategic highway research program and authorized funding
for a project to develop detailed research plans and specific projects
based on the goals of Special Report 260. FHWA provided matching funds
to develop the plans, which was conducted under the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program[A].
Date: 2003;
Event: The National Cooperative Highway Research Program completed the
detailed research plans. The plans, which included specific projects
in each of the four research areas, were summarized in the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 510, Interim Planning for
a Future Strategic Highway Research Program.
Date: 2005;
Event: SAFETEA-LU authorized, among other matters, the creation of a
strategic highway research program to address challenges affecting the
U.S. highway system and funding for that program. The law also
required TRB to report on the strategies and administrative structure
for implementing the results of SHRP 2 no later than February 1, 2009;
In December, FHWA, AASHTO, and the National Research Council signed a
memorandum of understanding that (1) established a partnership among
the three organizations to carry out SHRP 2, (2) selected TRB to
manage the program, and (3) described the program's governance
structure.
Date: 2006;
Event: SHRP 2 was officially inaugurated in March when FHWA provided
TRB with funding to initiate the program through a cooperative
agreement with the National Research Council.
Date: 2007;
Event: TRB awarded the first SHRP 2 research contracts in February.
Date: 2008;
Event: The SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 provided
additional obligation authority for SHRP 2[B].
Date: 2009;
Event: As required by Congress in 2005, TRB issued Special Report 296:
Implementing the Results of the Second Strategic Highway Research
Program: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life
in January 2009[C].
Date: 2013;
Event: Planned completion of SHRP 2 research.
Source: GAO.
[A] AASHTO and FHWA funded work to develop the detailed research plans
and specific projects for each of the four research areas identified
in Special Report 260 through the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program. These plans and projects, known as the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 20-58, are available at
[hyperlink, http://www.TRB.org/SHRP2].
[B] Pub. L. No. 110-244, 122 Stat. 1572, 1604 (June 6, 2008).
[C] TRB, Special Report 296: Implementing the Results of the Second
Strategic Highway Research Program: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion,
Improving Quality of Life, (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2009).
[End of table]
Special Report 260 recommended that the program address the following
four research goals:
* safety--to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes through
more accurate knowledge of driver behavior and other crash factors;
* renewal--to develop a consistent and systematic approach to
performing highway rehabilitation that is rapid, causes minimum
disruption, and produces long-lived (durable) transportation
facilities, such as roadways and bridges;
* reliability--to provide highway users with improved travel time
reliability (more consistent travel times between locations) by
preventing and reducing the impact of relatively unpredictable events,
such as traffic accidents, work zones, special events, and weather;
and:
* capacity--to develop approaches and tools for systematically
integrating environmental, economic, and community requirements into
the decision-making processes for planning and designing projects to
increase highway capacity.
While Special Report 260 provided strategic direction and a general
framework for developing SHRP 2, additional planning had to be
conducted before the research program could begin. Therefore, in
January 2002, TRB assembled five panels--an oversight panel and four
technical panels of experts--to provide leadership and technical
guidance for the development of detailed research plans for each of
the four research areas. The panels consisted of a wide range of
highway transportation experts, including representatives from state
departments of transportation, FHWA, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, universities, industry associations, and
private companies.
The planning effort, completed in September 2003, resulted in detailed
research plans for each of the four research areas, which identified,
among other matters, the objectives, scope, and anticipated projects
and budgets for each of the four areas. Each technical panel of
experts prioritized the research projects identified in its area after
considering, among other matters, the (1) probability of each
project's success and (2) likelihood that each project would improve
transportation practices. In total, the four plans identified 106
projects--15 for safety, 38 for renewal, 33 for reliability, and 20
for capacity projects--designed to achieve the overall research goals
specified in Special Report 260.
SAFETEA-LU, enacted in 2005, established several requirements for
carrying out SHRP 2. For example, Congress required that the program
(1) address the four research areas described in Special Report 260 as
well as the detailed research plans completed in 2003 and (2) involve
state transportation officials and other stakeholders in the
governance of the research program. SHRP 2 began in December 2005,
when FHWA, AASHTO, and the National Research Council formed a
partnership to carry out SHRP 2 through a memorandum of understanding.
In doing so, these entities specified that TRB should manage the
program's daily operations and budget and establish a structure for
carrying out the program. Similar to the 2003 detailed planning
effort, TRB established the following organizational structure,
composed of experts at all levels, to carry out SHRP 2:
* an oversight committee to approve annual work plans, budgets, and
contractor awards, among other activities;
* a technical coordinating committee (TCC) for each of the four
research areas to develop annual research plans and monitor the
progress of contracts, among other matters;[Footnote 14] and:
* numerous expert task groups, as needed, to provide technical input
to each of the four research areas, develop the requests for project
proposals, recommend contractor selections, and monitor research
projects.[Footnote 15]
According to SHRP 2 staff, the extensive involvement of experts to
define, prioritize, and oversee research in each of the four areas was
intended to maximize the usefulness of the research results.
Special Report 260, which was requested by Congress, recommended that
SHRP 2 receive $450 million over 6 fiscal years, with 9 years to
complete the research.[Footnote 16] In 2005, SAFETEA-LU authorized
$205 million for SHRP 2 over 4 fiscal years (fiscal years 2006 through
2009). SHRP 2 was officially inaugurated in March 2006, when FHWA
provided about $36 million to TRB to initiate the program and 7 years
to complete the research (i.e., by 2013) through a cooperative
agreement with the National Research Council.[Footnote 17] However,
the initial amount provided for fiscal year 2006 constituted less than
one-half of the annual recommended amount in Special Report 260 ($75
million) and about $15 million less than the annual amount authorized
in SAFETEA-LU ($51.25 million). SAFETEA-LU contained other funding
limitations, which ultimately reduced SHRP 2's funding below its
authorized amount.[Footnote 18] The 2008 SAFETEA-LU Technical
Corrections Act provided additional obligation authority for the
program, which resulted in about $20 million in additional funds. TRB
currently expects about $171 million in total SHRP 2 funding. Table 2
provides a comparison of the (1) funding and duration for SHRP 2 as
recommended in Special Report 260, (2) program funding authorized in
SAFETEA-LU, and (3) amount actually funded.
Table 2: Amount and Duration of SHRP 2 Funding, as of December 31,
2009:
Annual funding level;
Recommended: $75.0 million;
Authorized: $51.25 million[A];
Actual funding: $42.7 million[B].
Years of funding;
Recommended: 6;
Authorized: 4;
Actual funding: 4.
Years for program duration;
Recommended: 9;
Authorized: 7.
Total funding;
Recommended: $450 million;
Authorized: $205 million;
Actual funding: $171 million.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: All funding amounts are in nominal dollars.
[A] The SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act changed the funding
source for SHRP 2 and resulted in about $20 million in additional
funding for the program for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Consistent
with a recommendation in TRB's Special Report 260, this legislation
authorized the funding to come from state federal-aid highway
apportioned funds, rather than from FHWA's research program budget.
The legislation authorized an amount not to exceed 0.205 percent from
state federal-aid highway apportioned funds.
[B] The actual funding level represents the average amount of funds
received by the program across the 4 fiscal years: $36.2 million in
2006, $39.7 million in 2007, $46.8 million in 2008, and $48.2 million
in 2009.
[End of table]
SHRP 2 Research Projects Were Selected Based on Expert Input and
Program Funding and Time Frames:
The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded research projects for the
program based on the recommendations of its TCCs, which considered the
input of other experts and factors such as available program funds and
time frames. These experts included highway transportation personnel
from federal, state, and local government; private sector firms;
academia; AASHTO liaisons; and other stakeholder organizations within
the U.S. and international highway community. While the 2003 detailed
research plans constituted the starting point for decisions about
project selections, the 106 projects identified in these plans had to
be significantly modified on two occasions because of program funding
and time frames. The first major modification occurred in 2006, when,
as discussed, considerably less funding and time were provided for the
program's completion than had been assumed by the parties involved in
the development of the detailed research plans in 2003. The second
major modification occurred in 2008, when about $20 million in
additional program funding became available because of the passage of
the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act.
On both occasions, the SHRP 2 oversight committee relied on the input
of experts to select projects for funding. Given less funding and time
than had been assumed for completing the program, in 2006, the
oversight committee requested that the parties involved in the 2003
planning effort reevaluate these plans for the purpose of rescoping
the program and prioritizing projects for funding. In doing so, these
parties assigned lower priority to projects that (1) were duplicative
or similar to other research efforts, (2) could not be accomplished
within SHRP 2's budget or time frame, or (3) could be deferred. In
addition, they rescoped other projects under consideration for
funding. After the four TCCs were formed later in 2006, the oversight
committee requested them to review the revised research plans. As a
result of this effort, the TCCs developed recommendations for project
funding in each of the four research areas, which were approved by the
oversight committee in November 2006.
When more funds became available, in 2008, the oversight committee
asked the TCCs to prepare prioritized lists of additional projects for
funding. In doing so, the oversight committee requested the TCCs to
assign higher funding priority to (1) ongoing projects that addressed
gaps in existing research, (2) projects that were demonstrating the
most promising results, and (3) potential projects that advanced SHRP
2's strategic goals. This effort resulted in project recommendations
for several new projects and additional funding for some existing
projects, which were approved by the oversight committee in November
2008.
As a result of the reprioritization process, 56 of the 106 projects
identified in 2003 either evolved into, or were partially merged with,
one or more of the currently funded SHRP 2 projects, while 50 of the
projects were eliminated entirely. Table 3 provides information on the
number of projects identified in the 2003 detailed research plans (1)
for each research area; (2) that either evolved into, or were
partially merged with, one or more SHRP 2 funded projects; and (3)
that were eliminated entirely from funding. Appendixes II through V
provide more detailed information, by research area, on how specific
projects identified in 2003 were reprioritized for funding.
Table 3: Information on the Number of Projects Identified in 2003 That
Evolved or Merged to Form a SHRP 2 Project or Were Eliminated:
Research areas: Safety;
Projects identified in 2003: 15;
Projects that evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A]: 5;
Projects that had elements merged with other SHRP 2 projects[B]: 4;
Projects that were eliminated entirely: 6.
Research areas: Renewal;
Projects identified in 2003: 38;
Projects that evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A]: 16;
Projects that had elements merged with other SHRP 2 projects[B]: 5;
Projects that were eliminated entirely: 17.
Research areas: Reliability;
Projects identified in 2003: 33;
Projects that evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A]: 12;
Projects that had elements merged with other SHRP 2 projects[B]: 1;
Projects that were eliminated entirely: 20.
Research areas: Capacity;
Projects identified in 2003: 20;
Projects that evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A]: 7;
Projects that had elements merged with other SHRP 2 projects[B]: 6;
Projects that were eliminated entirely: 7.
Research areas: Total;
Projects identified in 2003: 106;
Projects that evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A]: 40;
Projects that had elements merged with other SHRP 2 projects[B]: 16;
Projects that were eliminated entirely: 50.
Source: GAO presentation of SHRP 2 information.
[A] For the purposes of this report, projects that "evolved" are those
that had their core research elements largely addressed in one or more
funded SHRP 2 projects.
[B] Some portion or portions of these projects were merged to form one
or more currently funded SHRP 2 projects.
[End of table]
The SHRP 2 Oversight Committee Allocated about $123 Million for 85
Projects: 63 Are Completed or Ongoing and 22 Are Planned:
As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated
approximately $123 million (about 72 percent) of the roughly $171
million available to fund projects related to highway safety, renewal,
reliability, and capacity.[Footnote 19] Of the 85 projects selected
for funding, 11 were completed, 52 were ongoing, and 22 were expected
to begin in the future. SHRP 2 staff expect all of the projects will
be completed by 2013. The outcomes of the projects are expected to
vary, ranging from the (1) production of data sets and related
analyses to (2) development of improved technologies, procedures,
guidelines, and techniques for advancing the goals of each of the four
research areas. The oversight committee allocated the remaining $48
million to fund administrative expenses, publication of research
reports, and contingencies that may arise. Figure 1 illustrates how
SHRP 2 funding was allocated as of December 31, 2009.
Figure 1: Allocation for SHRP 2 Funding, as of December 31, 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Safety projects: $49 million (29%);
Administrative expenses[C]: $39 million (23%);
Renewal projects: $32 million (19%);
Capacity projects: $21 million (12%);
Reliability projects: $20 million (12%);
Contingency fund[B]: $7 million (4%);
Research reports[A]: $2 million 91%).
Source: GAO analysis of SHRP 2 data.
Note: Data do not add because of rounding.
[A] The oversight committee allocated these funds (about 1 percent of
total funding) to publish research reports. This includes the cost of
all contractors' final project reports and TRB's January 2009 report
to Congress on the strategies and administrative structure for
implementing SHRP 2 research results.
[B] The oversight committee set aside these funds (about 4 percent of
total funding) to meet future needs that may arise. According to SHRP
2 staff, this funding will likely be allocated to research, the
production of research reports, and efforts to facilitate
implementation of some SHRP 2 projects.
[C] The oversight committee allocated these funds (about 23 percent of
total funding) for costs associated with travel for TCC and expert
task group members, staff salaries, meetings, various publications
other than research reports, and other administrative costs.
[End of figure]
Special Report 260 recommended different percentages of funding for
each of the four research areas, ranging from 15 percent to 40 percent
of available funding.[Footnote 20] As shown in table 4, the oversight
committee closely followed the relative funding distributions
recommended in this report. Table 4 compares the recommended funding
levels and percentages in Special Report 260 with the actual funding
levels and percentages.
Table 4: Recommended and Actual Funding Levels and Percentages of
Funding for the Four Research Areas, as of December 31, 2009:
Research area: Safety;
Recommended funding distribution: 40%;
Recommended funding level: $180 million;
Actual funding distribution: 40%;
Actual funding level: $49 million.
Research area: Renewal;
Recommended funding distribution: 25;
Recommended funding level: $113 million;
Actual funding distribution: 26;
Actual funding level: $32 million.
Research area: Reliability;
Recommended funding distribution: 20;
Recommended funding level: $90 million;
Actual funding distribution: 16;
Actual funding level: $20 million.
Research area: Capacity;
Recommended funding distribution: 15;
Recommended funding level: $68 million;
Actual funding distribution: 17;
Actual funding level: $21 million.
Research area: Total;
Recommended funding distribution: 100%;
Recommended funding level: $450 million;
Actual funding distribution: 100%;
Actual funding level: $123 million.
Source: GAO presentation of Special Report 260 and SHRP 2 data.
Note: Some columns do not add because of rounding.
[End of table]
About $49 Million Has Been Allocated for 16 Safety Research Projects;
12 Are Completed or Ongoing and 4 Are Planned:
As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated
about $49 million to fund 5 completed, 7 ongoing, and 4 future safety
projects, for a total of 16 projects. The goal of the safety research
is "to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes through more
accurate knowledge of crash factors and of the cost-effectiveness of
selected countermeasures in addressing these factors." The SHRP 2
safety TCC expects that the collection of safety research projects
will (1) provide objective and reliable information on driver
performance and behavior and (2) help assess the risks associated with
related crash factors.
The 16 safety projects are part of two overall studies that are
expected to produce a variety of data on driver behavior: the in-
vehicle driving study and the site-based risk study. Most of these
projects (15 of 16) and funding ($48 million of $49 million allocated)
relate to the in-vehicle driving study, also referred to as the SHRP 2
naturalistic driving study. This study involves the use of cameras,
radar, and other sensors installed in the vehicles of about 3,000
volunteer drivers in six locations for 1 to 2 years.[Footnote 21]
Collectively, the devices are expected to record (1) real-time video
from multiple angles of each volunteer while driving (e.g., the
driver's face and interior views of the vehicle) and the driving
environment (e.g., road characteristics and traffic) and (2)
information about the vehicle (e.g., the vehicle's speed and
information on whether the seat belt is being used). In addition,
researchers will record information on roadway conditions, as well as
demographic data and data on other factors that may affect the
drivers' behavior. Overall, SHRP 2 staff expect this study will result
in objective information on driver behavior that, for the first time,
will allow researchers to determine the relative risk associated with
various factors and circumstances related to the analysis of
accidents, near collisions, and uneventful driving experiences.
[Footnote 22]
The oversight committee allocated the remaining $1 million for a
project related to a site-based risk study. This project includes (1)
a study to develop a portable, semi-automated video system and (2) a
pilot field study, using multiple overhead video cameras, to record
the relative position of traffic moving through selected locations to
advance the understanding of driver behavior. While the intent of the
naturalistic driving study is to passively observe individual drivers,
the site-based study will allow researchers to observe multiple
drivers at selected locations. SHRP 2 staff expect the project will
allow researchers to observe how drivers resolve traffic conflicts;
react to traffic controls, such as road signs and stoplights; and
adjust to changing environmental conditions, such as light, weather,
and pavement quality. Figure 2 provides the projected budget and
timeline, by research category, for the SHRP 2 safety projects.
Figure 2: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Safety Projects:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated timeline]
Safety projects, by category:
In-vehicle study or naturalistic driving study:
2007 through 2012;
15 projects;
$48.2 million.
Site-based study:
2007 through 2010;
1 project;
$1.0 million.
Total: $49.2 million.
Source: GAO analysis of SHRP 2 data.
[End of figure]
According to SHRP 2 staff, the naturalistic driving study is expected
to produce the largest and most comprehensive database on driver
behavior available to date because, unlike most previous studies that
generally relied on simulations and subjective post accident
observations, the naturalistic driving study is expected to provide
objective information on driver behavior in real-world circumstances.
These data are expected to help transportation officials (1) better
understand risk factors, such as driver distractions, associated with
different crash factors, and, ultimately, (2) develop practical
measures to effectively reduce collisions or otherwise improve highway
safety. SHRP 2 staff stated that while some data analysis is planned
(about $5 million), significantly more analytic work will be needed
after the conclusion of SHRP 2 to fully realize the benefits of these
data. According to these staff, future analyses of these data likely
will lead to significant improvements in highway safety, particularly
related to accidents that occur when vehicles run off the road--a
major cause of highway fatalities.[Footnote 23] In addition, the
safety TCC expects the results of the site-based project likely will
lead to similar future studies that may provide more comprehensive
information on, for example, accidents resulting from collisions at
intersections, where many accidents occur.[Footnote 24] See appendix
II for additional information on how these projects were reprioritized
for funding and selected information about the currently funded safety
projects.
About $32 Million Has Been Allocated for 28 Renewal Research Projects;
27 Are Completed or Ongoing and 1 Is Planned:
As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated
about $32 million to fund 3 completed and 24 ongoing projects, and 1
future project, for a total of 28 renewal projects. The goal of the
renewal research is "to develop a consistent, systematic approach to
performing highway renewal that is (1) rapid, (2) causes minimum
disruption, and (3) produces long-lived facilities." The SHRP 2
renewal TCC expects the collection of renewal projects will promote a
systematic approach to highway rehabilitation and reconstruction
(i.e., highway renewal) and result in quicker, more efficient, and
improved repairs because the projects are designed to, among other
matters, minimize travel disruptions and produce long-lived (i.e.,
more durable) facilities.
Nineteen of the 28 funded projects focus on developing rapid
approaches to highway renewal and are expected to reduce the time
involved in preparing and executing construction projects. In total,
the oversight committee allocated about $21.5 million (about 67
percent of total renewal funding) for these 19 projects. In addition,
the oversight committee allocated about $2.5 million to fund 4
projects to minimize disruptions to travelers, communities, or
utilities while renewal construction is under way, and about $8
million to fund 5 projects for producing more durable facilities
needed to minimize the frequency of highway-related repairs. Figure 3
provides the projected budget and timeline, by research category, for
the SHRP 2 renewal projects.
Figure 3: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Renewal Projects:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated timeline]
Renewal projects, by category:
Rapid approaches:
2007 through 2012;
19 projects;
$21.5 million.
Minimize disruption:
2007 through 2012;
4 projects;
$2.5 million.
Long-lived/durable facilities:
2007 through 2012;
5 projects;
$8.2 million.
Total: $32.2 million.
Source: GAO analysis of SHRP 2 data.
[End of figure]
The renewal TCC expects research in this area will promote rapid and
durable highway rehabilitation and reconstruction and result in the
production and implementation of various tools (i.e., hardware or
technology) and techniques (i.e., strategies, procedures,
recommendations, guidelines, or specifications). Overall, the renewal
TCC expects 19 of the 28 projects will primarily develop tools, while
the remaining 9 will primarily develop techniques for promoting rapid
highway renewal. Specifically:
* To advance rapid approaches to highway renewal, 15 projects are
expected to primarily develop tools, while 4 projects are expected to
primarily develop techniques. For example, regarding tools, some of
the 15 projects are expected to produce technologies for efficiently
locating and characterizing underground utilities. This is necessary
because studies show that locating utilities, such as water mains and
electrical and gas lines, is the most significant source of delay in
highway renewal work.[Footnote 25] Regarding techniques, one of the 4
projects is expected to produce best practices and recommendations for
addressing worker fatigue, which, according to SHRP 2 staff, can (1)
negatively affect performance and the quality of work performed and
(2) increase the potential for time-consuming and costly mistakes,
accidents, and injuries among workers who often are required to work
for extended periods of time.
* To minimize disruptions during renewal work, each of the 4 funded
projects is expected to produce techniques for foreseeing and avoiding
or mitigating travel disruptions. For example, 1 project is expected
to establish cooperative strategies that help transportation agencies
and utility companies effectively manage utilities throughout the
renewal efforts, thereby minimizing disruptions to highway users and
utility users in surrounding communities.
* To produce durable highway facilities, 4 of the 5 projects are
expected to primarily develop tools, such as technologies for
designing and constructing bridges to increase the service life of
bridges, while the other is expected to primarily develop techniques
for preserving pavements to promote a longer service life.
See appendix III for additional information on how these projects were
reprioritized for funding and selected information about the currently
funded renewal projects.
About $20 Million Has Been Allocated for 21 Reliability Research
Projects; 11 Are Completed or Ongoing and 10 Are Planned:
As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated
about $20 million to fund 1 completed, 10 ongoing, and 10 future
projects, for a total of 21 reliability research projects. The goal of
the reliability research is "to provide highway users with reliable
travel times by preventing and reducing the impact of nonrecurring
incidents." Thus, projects in the reliability area are designed to
address highway congestion caused by nonrecurring (i.e., relatively
unpredictable) events--such as traffic accidents, work zones, special
events, and weather. The SHRP 2 reliability TCC expects these research
results will help transportation practitioners provide highway users
with reliable travel times by, for example, helping to ensure that an
individual's commute to work is consistently the same and minimally
affected by congestion caused by relatively unpredictable events.
The reliability TCC divided research in this area into four principal
categories addressing different aspects of travel time reliability.
The oversight committee allocated most of the funds, $11.6 million
(about 57 percent of total reliability funding), to 14 projects in two
of the four reliability research categories--"data and analysis" and
"institutional and human components." Collectively, the 14 projects
are expected to (1) develop data, analytical tools, and procedures for
monitoring travel time reliability; (2) develop performance measures
and models to evaluate the effectiveness of actions to control and
mitigate the impact of relatively unpredictable events that cause
congestion; and (3) identify how the institutional behaviors of
transportation and public safety agencies and the human behaviors of
travelers contribute to unpredictable events that affect congestion.
The oversight committee allocated the remaining funds--about $8.6
million (or, approximately, 43 percent of total reliability funding)--
for projects in the three remaining research categories. Specifically,
the committee allocated about $5.3 million to 4 projects for
"incorporating reliability into planning, programming, and design" of
highways. Further, the oversight committee allocated about $1.5
million to 2 projects to encourage the development of innovative ideas
related to "future needs and opportunities to improve travel time
reliability." Finally, in November 2008, the oversight committee
allocated about $1.8 million for a project to produce a framework for
integrating the results of the reliability research, potentially
providing transportation decision makers and practitioners with a
guide to (1) understand travel time reliability and (2) incorporate
reliability strategies into their project planning and design. Figure
4 provides the projected budget and timeline, by research category,
for the SHRP 2 reliability projects.
Figure 4: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Reliability
Projects:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated timeline]
Reliability projects, by category:
Data and analysis component of reliability programs:
2007 through 2012;
6 projects;
$6.7 million.
Institutional and human component of reliability programs:
2008 through 2012;
8 projects;
$4.9 million.
Incorporating reliability into planning, programming, and design:
2008 through 2012;
4 projects;
$5.3 million.
Future needs and opportunities to improve travel time reliability:
2010 through 2012;
2 projects;
$1.5 million.
Framework integrating reliability results:
2007 through 2012;
1 project;
$1.8 million.
Source: GAO analysis of SHRP 2 data.
[End of figure]
Overall, the reliability TCC expects this research will develop and
promote programs and strategies that monitor and improve travel time
reliability. For example, one project focuses on developing guidance
for establishing programs to monitor travel time reliability.
Additionally, some projects are expected to use data collected from
the SHRP 2 safety projects to understand how driver behavior is
affected by relatively unpredictable events that cause congestion.
Other projects are expected to develop measures for understanding the
effectiveness of strategies used by transportation agencies, while
some focus more on the managerial aspects of agencies, such as the
identification of the optimal organizational structure to monitor
travel time reliability. Moreover, the oversight committee funded 2
projects to incorporate some of the reliability research results into
two widely used reference manuals for highway designers--TRB's Highway
Capacity Manual and AASHTO's Policy on Geometric Design for Highways
and Streets.[Footnote 26] According to SHRP 2 staff, the inclusion of
some of the research results into these reference manuals, such as
research on cost-effective highway design features that can reduce the
effects of relatively unpredictable events, represents a significant
step toward the systematic implementation of the reliability research
findings. SHRP 2 staff noted that the incorporation of travel time
reliability into highway design, construction, and management is a
relatively new concept for the transportation community. The staff
said that they are hopeful that research in this area will result in
innovative methods for reducing congestion. See appendix IV for
additional information on how these projects were reprioritized for
funding and selected information about the currently funded
reliability projects.
About $21 Million Has Been Allocated for 20 Capacity Research
Projects; 13 Are Completed or Ongoing and 7 Are Planned:
As of December 31, 2009, the SHRP 2 oversight committee had allocated
about $21 million to fund 2 completed, 11 ongoing, and 7 future
projects, for a total of 20 capacity research projects. The goal of
the capacity research is "to develop approaches and tools for
systematically integrating environmental, economic, and community
requirements into the analysis, planning, and design of new highway
capacity." The SHRP 2 capacity TCC expects this research will promote
a holistic approach to addressing highway capacity issues.
The capacity TCC divided the capacity projects into two categories:
the (1) development of a "collaborative decision-making framework," to
establish a decision-making process that includes environmental,
economic, and social impacts of highway capacity efforts, and (2)
"improvement in methods" to address common issues that arise during
the design, planning, and execution of capacity-enhancing efforts. The
oversight committee allocated most of the funds, $13.9 million (about
66 percent of total capacity funding), for 13 projects related to the
first category of projects and $7.2 million for 7 projects in the
second category. Figure 5 provides the projected budget and timeline,
by research category, for the SHRP 2 capacity projects.
Figure 5: Projected Budgets and Timelines for SHRP 2 Capacity Projects:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated timeline]
Capacity projects, by category:
Collaborative decision-making framework and related projects:
2007 through 2012;
13 projects;
$13.9 million.
Improvement in methods:
2007 through 2012;
7 projects;
$7.2 million.
Total: $21.1 million[A].
Source: GAO analysis of SHRP 2 data.
[A] The SHRP 2 oversight committee allocated $0.25 million from
reliability research to the capacity research area to incorporate
strategies for improving travel time reliability into the decision-
making process for highway capacity efforts.
[End of figure]
The capacity TCC expects the outcomes of the 13 capacity projects to
develop a framework for improving collaboration among transportation
agencies, community and government stakeholders, and the general
public, which could result in more comprehensive, efficient, and
informed decision making. Specifically, the collaborative decision-
making framework is expected to (1) provide guidance to agencies at
key decision points and (2) help transportation stakeholders consider
a variety of issues throughout the decision-making process. The
following issues are included in the framework:
* community issues (e.g., comparative assessments of how alternative
capacity efforts affect communities);
* environmental issues (e.g., analyses of how capacity-enhancing
projects affect greenhouse emissions and the effective protection of
wetlands);
* economic issues (e.g., assessments of matters, such as the expected
increase in employment and tax revenue of highway capacity projects to
the local economy); and:
* travel time reliability issues (e.g., the effective loss of capacity
because of relatively unpredictable events that cause congestion).
In addition, the capacity TCC expects the outcomes of the remaining
seven projects will provide better methods for improving capacity
efforts, such as models and analyses needed to assess the consequences
of capacity-related enhancements. For example, one project is expected
to establish partnerships with local transportation agencies and
develop and operationalize an innovative travel demand model for
analyzing the effects of capacity management strategies. The capacity
TCC expects that this project will help transportation agencies better
understand how their management strategies affect highway capacity,
such as how their decisions about speed limits or the use of
reversible travel lanes affect congestion. Another project in this
category is expected to help transportation practitioners understand
the impact of highway tolls and other pricing strategies on highway
congestion. See appendix V for additional information on how these
projects were reprioritized for funding and selected information about
the currently funded capacity projects.
Because of Funding and Time Constraints, 50 of the 106 Projects
Identified in 2003 Were Eliminated Entirely, while Many of the
Remaining 56 Projects Had Portions of Their Planned Research
Eliminated:
As a result of SHRP 2's reprioritization process, 50 of the 106
projects identified in 2003 were eliminated entirely, and many of the
remaining 56 projects that either evolved into, or were merged with,
one or more SHRP 2 projects had one or more aspects of their research
eliminated from funding. As discussed, the reprioritization process
was needed to adjust to funding and time constraints that had not been
anticipated when the programs' detailed project plans were developed
in 2003. According to SHRP 2 staff, in the end, the oversight
committee typically funded applied research to develop products
critical to transportation agencies and other stakeholders--rather
than many of the implementation-related activities, such as testing
the research results in real-world settings. Thus, the eliminated
research typically was for, among other activities, (1) translating
research results into products (i.e., research applications), (2)
training and dissemination of the research findings (i.e., technology
transfer), and (3) providing technical support for implementing
research products and technologies and for demonstrating new
technologies (i.e., research implementation).
According to DOT and AASHTO officials and SHRP 2 staff, early results
of the SHRP 2 research have been promising but likely would be
enhanced with additional funding to restore some of the eliminated
research. DOT officials and SHRP 2 staff explained that initial
research results often require additional research and development in
real-world trials before a usable product is ready for implementation.
Thus, in their collective view, to fully achieve the original
expectations for SHRP 2, it will be important to eventually fund some
of the research that had to be eliminated because of funding and time
constraints. SHRP 2 staff further explained that the sooner new
research findings are implemented, the earlier that the performance
and economic benefits of the research will begin to accrue. Similarly,
in June 2008, the Chief Deputy Director of the California Department
of Transportation (and AASHTO representative) testified before the
House Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation that the ultimate
success of SHRP 2 research will depend on widespread deployment.
According to SHRP 2 staff, they are hopeful that other researchers
will develop projects for implementing some of SHRP 2's research after
the program's completion.
The following sections provide information on some of the eliminated
research.
Safety:
Of the 15 safety projects identified in 2003, 6 projects were
eliminated entirely, including 2 of the 3 projects related to the site-
based risk study. As discussed, this study was expected to use
multiple overhead video cameras to record the relative position and
motion of each vehicle passing through selected locations under
different traffic conditions or with different signal phases (e.g.,
left turns and yellow lights) to evaluate the effect on the traffic.
To complete the study, the SHRP 2 safety TCC originally anticipated
that 3 projects would be funded to (1) develop technology and methods
for data collection and conduct a pilot test, (2) implement the study
in field tests, and (3) analyze the resulting data and assess the
implications of these data. However, because of funding and time
constraints, the oversight committee funded only 1 of the 3 projects
and, thus, SHRP 2 will not, according to the safety TCC, result in a
comprehensive assessment of the risk of collision associated with
driver behavior.
In addition, the 2 projects identified in 2003 for evaluating
countermeasures were not funded.[Footnote 27] Overall, this research
was intended to (1) address the effectiveness of existing
countermeasures through rigorous, retrospective studies of accidents
under different conditions, and (2) support the development of new
countermeasures. The first of the 2 eliminated projects was expected
to identify and prioritize countermeasure issues for subsequent
evaluations, while the second project would have evaluated the
identified countermeasure issues to determine the associated benefits
and costs based on retrospective crash data. A key requirement for
both of these projects was the use of expected data from the site-
based risk and naturalistic driving studies. However, because
designing field studies requires substantial resources and time,
neither of these projects was funded.
According to DOT officials and SHRP 2 staff, the 2 site-based and 2
countermeasures evaluation projects were dropped, in part because they
expected more promising outcomes from the naturalistic driving study.
[Footnote 28] AASHTO representatives agreed and told us that it would
not have been helpful to reduce funding for the naturalistic driving
study to, instead, fund other projects because a larger, more
comprehensive data set on driver behavior is needed for developing new
and improved countermeasures. Thus, given limited funding, the SHRP 2
safety TCC decided to allocate most of the safety funding toward the
development of this data set.
Finally, while the oversight committee funded all but 2 of the
naturalistic driving study projects identified in 2003, that research
also was affected by funding realities. Specifically, the study
originally was intended to collect 3 years of data from about 4,000
volunteer drivers. However, 1 year and about 1,000 volunteers had to
be eliminated from the planned study because of the shorter time frame
for carrying out SHRP 2. According to SHRP 2 staff, an additional year
of research would have yielded about 50 percent more data at little
additional cost, since the equipment for the vehicles already would
have been purchased. See appendix II for additional information on how
the safety projects identified in 2003 were reprioritized for funding
and the currently funded safety projects.
Renewal:
Of the 38 renewal projects identified in 2003, 17 projects were
eliminated entirely. According to DOT and SHRP 2 staff, the renewal
area probably was most affected by the reprioritization process
because many of the projects identified in 2003 were daisy-chained
together and thus dependent on the completion or initiation of other
related projects. Many of the 17 projects were eliminated for this
reason, while others were eliminated because they were similar to
other recent, current, or planned research. Additionally, given less
funding and time than originally anticipated, the SHRP 2 renewal TCC
decided that many of the 17 projects, including several projects for
developing technologies and techniques to (1) continuously monitor the
health and performance of bridges and (2) improve their maintenance
with minimum disruptions to users, should be eliminated from funding
consideration because they were of lower priority than other research
projects.
Further, while not entirely eliminated, some of the renewal projects
selected for funding were reduced in scope, and implementation
activities related to the research were not funded. For example, all
of the renewal projects identified in 2003 that focused on innovative
methods to locate and characterize underground utilities were scaled
down because they depended on the outcomes of projects that had not
been funded. In other cases, laboratory evaluations, field case
studies, and demonstrations of proposed systems for improving
pavements and bridges were eliminated because related pilot projects
for implementing the research were not funded. See appendix III for
additional information on how the renewal projects identified in 2003
were reprioritized for funding and the currently funded renewal
projects.
Reliability:
Of the 33 reliability projects identified in 2003, 20 projects were
eliminated entirely. As with the other areas, SHRP 2 staff told us
that the reliability projects identified in 2003 needed to be
reevaluated to fund as many high-priority projects as possible given
available funding and time frames. According to the staff, the
reprioritization of these projects was the most challenging area and,
consequently, required the assistance of a facilitator to aid in the
decision-making process. Because research for reducing the impact of
relatively unpredictable causes of congestion and improving travel
time reliability is new, the collection of SHRP 2 projects identified
in 2003 was expected to provide a comprehensive approach to collecting
real-time information for use in assessing travel time reliability.
However, given less funding and time than had been expected, the SHRP
2 reliability TCC decided to focus on high-priority projects needed to
collect and analyze fundamental data for improving travel times for
travelers.
In addition, some of the 20 eliminated projects were designed to
improve agencies' response to relatively unpredictable events through
the use of new technologies to (1) monitor traffic and roadway
conditions, (2) instantaneously communicate information about
incidents and work zones to highway users, and (3) provide information
about transporting hazardous materials to better prepare agencies that
respond to accidents. Furthermore, several of the eliminated projects
were designed to study the effect of various weather and pavement
conditions on travel time reliability. According to SHRP 2 staff,
these and other reliability projects identified in 2003 had to be
eliminated because of funding and time constraints for conducting
follow-on projects needed to apply the research results and transfer
the technology developed to highway practitioners and other users.
Thus, according to the staff, field tests to demonstrate the
usefulness of the research to practitioners, provide additional
insights into how the results can be implemented by agencies and other
users, and create more usable future products will be needed following
completion of SHRP 2. See appendix IV for additional information on
how the reliability projects identified in 2003 were reprioritized for
funding and the currently funded reliability projects.
Capacity:
Of the 20 capacity projects identified in 2003, 7 projects were
eliminated entirely. According to FHWA officials and SHRP 2 staff, the
philosophy underlying this research area had to be completely
reevaluated largely because the research planned in 2003 envisioned a
much larger and broader scale of research. Specifically, many of the
2003 projects related to the development of a "virtual workspace" for
highway planning and development intended to visually illustrate the
effects of alternative planning approaches. According to SHRP 2 staff,
the virtual workspace, once developed, would have facilitated
simultaneous data transfer between highway practitioners at each step
of the highway planning process. However, the SHRP 2 capacity TCC
scaled down or eliminated most of the projects for advanced data
gathering, access, and the computerized display elements that would be
required for the virtual workspace, and, instead, decided to focus on
research needed to produce the collaborative decision-making framework
for highway planning and development.
SHRP 2 staff told us that most of the scaled-down or eliminated
projects were for research application and implementation, such as
technology transfer. Specifically, regarding the application of
research results, many of the eliminated projects were expected to (1)
enhance public and stakeholder support for capacity-enhancing projects
and (2) develop partnerships to provide training and implement the
research.[Footnote 29] Collectively, these projects were intended to
result in the systematic integration of environmental, economic, and
community requirements into the analysis, planning, and design for
enhancing highway capacity. In addition, while the currently funded
capacity research projects are expected to result in the development
of (1) a Web-based tool for using the collaborative decision-making
framework and (2) manuals and tools to assist transportation agencies
make more comprehensive and informed decisions, according to SHRP 2
staff, additional implementation, including technology transfer, will
be needed to help ensure that the research results are widely
implemented. See appendix V for additional information on how the
capacity projects identified in 2003 were reprioritized for funding
and the currently funded capacity projects.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DOT and TRB for review and
comment. DOT and TRB provided technical clarifications, which we
incorporated, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional
committees and members, DOT, TRB, and others. The report also is
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix VI.
David J. Wise Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
List of Committees:
The Honorable Barbara Boxer:
Chairman:
The Honorable James M. Inhofe:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John D. Rockefeller:
Chairman:
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
United States Senate:
The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Chairman:
The Honorable John L. Mica:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Bart Gordon:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ralph M. Hall:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Science and Technology:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To address our three reporting objectives, we reviewed the legislative
requirements, goals, and objectives for the Second Strategic Highway
Research Program (SHRP 2), including the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century; the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); and the
SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008. We also reviewed the
Department of Transportation's strategic plan for fiscal years 2006-
2011, and the Federal Highway Administration's October 2008 Strategic
Plan and its Corporate Master Plan for Research and Deployment of
Technology and Innovation. In addition, we reviewed and analyzed
literature, studies, and reports related to the research program. Our
review included reports by GAO and the Congressional Research Service
that provided background information on the first Strategic Highway
Research Program, SHRP 2, and the Federal Highway Administration's
research and technology program, including its federal-aid highway
program. We also reviewed the Transportation Research Board's (TRB)
Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing
Congestion, Improving Quality of Life;[Footnote 30] Special Report
261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology;[Footnote 31]
Special Report 296: Implementing the Results of the Second Strategic
Highway Research Program: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving
Quality of Life;[Footnote 32] and the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program's Report 510: Interim Planning for a Future Strategic
Highway Research Program.[Footnote 33] Finally, we reviewed quarterly,
semiannual, and annual SHRP 2 reports; annual research plans for the
four SHRP 2 research areas; and report summaries of the funded SHRP 2
projects.
To address our first two objectives (i.e., determining the process for
selecting research projects for funding and the status of those
projects), we reviewed the statutory requirements for SHRP 2 and
reviewed available agency and program documentation. We also
determined how the program is monitored and the program's reporting
requirements. In addition, we obtained and analyzed agency and program
documentation on projects that were either funded or identified for
potential funding in the 2003 detailed research plans, as well as the
revised plans for reprioritizing projects for funding. We also
reviewed this documentation to identify how TRB plans to evaluate the
research and how the outcomes of the research are expected to address
highway challenges.
To address our third objective (i.e., determining what, if any,
planned research was eliminated from the program), we compared program
documentation related to the currently funded projects with the four
research areas identified in Special Report 260 and the projects
identified in the 2003 research plans. We also determined how actual
funding for the four research areas compared with the funding levels
recommended in Special Report 260. Because of time constraints, we did
not assess the appropriateness of funding decisions or projects
selected for SHRP 2 funding.
To address all three objectives, we also interviewed agency officials
from the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal Highway
Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and representatives from the National Research
Council, TRB, SHRP 2 staff, and the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 through February
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Safety Research Projects:
The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded many of the safety projects
identified in the 2003 detailed research plans based on the
recommendations of the SHRP 2 safety technical coordinating committee.
As a result, 9 of the 15 safety projects identified in 2003 either
evolved or were partially merged into the currently funded safety
projects and 6 were eliminated. Table 6 provides information on the
safety projects identified in 2003 and how they were reprioritized for
funding. Table 7 provides information on the 16 currently funded SHRP
2 safety projects.
Table 5: How Safety Projects Identified in 2003 Were Reprioritized for
Funding:
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-1.1: Legal and Privacy
Issues in Recruiting Volunteer Drivers and Vehicles for Field Studies
of Driving Safety;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-1.2: Development of
Analysis Methods for Site-Based Risk Studies Using Recent Data;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-1.3: Development of
Analysis Methods for Vehicle-Based Risk Studies Using Recent Data;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-1.4: Development of
Comprehensive Roadway Information in a Geographical Information System
Database;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-1.5: Application of
Original Equipment Manufacturer Electronic Data Recorders for Risk
Studies;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-2.1: Vehicle-Based Risk
Study--Phase I: Study Design;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-2.2: Vehicle-Based Risk
Study--Phase II: Pilot Study;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-2.3: Vehicle-Based Risk
Study--Phase III: Field Study;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-2.4: Vehicle-Based Risk
Study--Phase IV: Intersection Analysis and Countermeasure Implications;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-2.5: Vehicle-Based Risk
Study--Phase IV: Road Departure Analysis and Countermeasure
Implications;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-2.6: Site-Based Risk
Study--Phase I: Study Design and Pilot;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A]: P.
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-2.7: Site-Based Risk
Study--Phase II: Field Study;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-2.8: Site-Based Risk
Study--Phase III: Analysis and Countermeasure Implications;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-3.1: Identify
Countermeasure Evaluation Topics;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Safety projects identified in 2003: Project 2-3.2: Retrospective
Countermeasure Evaluation Projects;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Safety projects identified in 2003: Total;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A]: 5;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B]: 4;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely: 6.
Source: GAO presentation of TRB and SHRP 2 information.
[A] For the purposes of this report, projects that "evolved" are those
that had their core research elements largely addressed in one or more
funded SHRP 2 projects.
[B] Some portion or portions of these projects were merged to form one
or more currently funded SHRP 2 projects.
[End of table]
Table 6: The 16 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Safety Projects, as of
December 31, 2009:
Project number: S01A;
Project title: Development of Analysis Methods Using Recent Data;
Project cost: $300,000;
Start date (approximately): 2/05/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 8/04/2009.
Project number: S01B;
Project title: Development of Analysis Methods Using Recent Data;
Project cost: $300,000;
Start date (approximately): 3/19/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 4/30/2010.
Project number: S01C;
Project title: Development of Analysis Methods Using Recent Data;
Project cost: $300,000;
Start date (approximately): 2/05/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 7/31/2009.
Project number: S01D;
Project title: Development of Analysis Methods Using Recent Data;
Project cost: $100,000;
Start date (approximately): 3/01/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 5/08/2008.
Project number: S01E;
Project title: Development of Analysis Methods Using Recent Data;
Project cost: $300,000;
Start date (approximately): 3/02/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 4/30/2010.
Project number: S02;
Project title: Integration of Analysis Methods;
Project cost: $421,639;
Start date (approximately): 3/02/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 1/31/2010.
Project number: S03;
Project title: Roadway Measurement System Evaluation;
Project cost: $529,999;
Start date (approximately): 12/19/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 12/31/2009.
Project number: S04A;
Project title: Roadway Information Database Development and Technical
Coordination and Quality Assurance of the Mobile Data Collection
Project (S04B);
Project cost: $1,000,000;
Start date (approximately): 3/01/2010;
Completion date (approximately): 5/31/2012.
Project number: S04B;
Project title: Mobile Data Collection;
Project cost: $3,500,000;
Start date (approximately): 10/01/2010;
Completion date (approximately): 4/30/2012.
Project number: S05;
Project title: Design of the In-Vehicle Driving Behavior and Crash
Risk Study;
Project cost: $3,034,000;
Start date (approximately): 6/01/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 10/31/2009.
Project number: S06;
Project title: Technical Coordination and Independent Quality
Assurance for Field Study;
Project cost: $6,200,003;
Start date (approximately): 11/01/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 10/31/2012.
Project number: S07;
Project title: In-Vehicle Driving Behavior Field Study;
Project cost: $16,489,644;
Start date (approximately): 4/01/2010;
Completion date (approximately): 12/31/2012.
Project number: S08;
Project title: Analysis of In-Vehicle Field Study Data and
Countermeasure Implications;
Project cost: $5,527,953;
Start date (approximately): 9/01/2010;
Completion date (approximately): 6/30/2012.
Project number: S12;
Project title: Data Acquisition System: Procurement quality assurance;
Project cost: $154,864;
Start date (approximately): 10/01/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 6/30/2010.
Project number: S12A;
Project title: Data Acquisition System: Equipment and Vendor;
Project cost: $10,000,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/22/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 7/31/2012.
Project number: S09;
Project title: Site-Based Video System Design and Development;
Project cost: 1,041,898;
Start date (approximately): 2/28/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 2/28/2010.
Project number: 16;
Project title: Total;
Project cost: $49,200,000.
Source: GAO presentation of SHRP 2 information.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Renewal Research Projects:
The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded many of the renewal projects
identified in the 2003 detailed research plans based on the
recommendations of the SHRP 2 renewal technical coordinating
committee. As a result, 21 of the 38 renewal projects identified in
2003 either evolved or were partially merged into the currently funded
renewal projects and 17 were eliminated. Table 8 provides information
on the renewal projects identified in 2003 and how they were
reprioritized for funding. Table 9 provides information on the 28
currently funded SHRP 2 renewal projects.
Table 7: How Renewal Projects Identified in 2003 Were Reprioritized
for Funding:
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-1.1: Utilities Location
Technology Advancements;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-1.2: Geotechnical
Solutions for Soil Improvement and Rapid Embankment Construction;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-1.3: Replacement of
Conventional Materials with High-Performance Materials in Bridge
Applications;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-1.4: Rapid
Rehabilitation Strategies of Specialty Structures;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-1.5: Micropiles for
Renewal of Bridge Foundations;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-1.6: Needs Assessment
and Implementation Plan for Developing a Comprehensive Intelligent
Project Delivery System;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-1.7: Facilitating the
Use of Recycled Aggregates;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-1.8: Identifying and
Reducing Worker, Inspector, and Manager Fatigue in Rapid Renewal
Environments;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-2.1: Modular Bridge
Systems;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-2.2: Develop Bridge
Designs that Take Advantage of Innovative Construction Technology;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-2.3: Modular Pavement
Technology;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-3.1: High-Speed,
Nondestructive Testing Procedures for Both Design Evaluation and
Construction Inspection;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-4.1: Performance
Specifications;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A]: P.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-4.2: Alternate
Contracting Strategies for Rapid Renewal;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-4.3: Incentive-Based
Specifications to Assure Meeting Rapid Renewal Project Goals;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-4.4: Development and
Evaluation of Performance-Based Warranties;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-4.5: Risk Manual for
Rapid Renewal Contracts;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-4.6: Innovative Project
Management Strategies for Large, Complex Projects;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-5.1: Strategic
Approaches at the Corridor and Network Level to Minimize Public
Disruption from the Renewal Process;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-5.2: Integrating the
"Mix of Fixes" Strategy into Corridor Development;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-5.3: Strategic
Approaches for Financing Large Renewal Projects;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-6.1: New Guidelines for
Improving Public Involvement in Renewal Strategy Selection;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-6.2: New Guidelines for
Improving Business Relationships and Emergency Response During Renewal
Projects;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-6.3: Utilities-State
Department of Transportation Institutional Mitigation Strategies;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-6.4: Railroad-State
Department of Transportation Institutional Mitigation Strategies;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-6.5: Context-Sensitive
Designs and Construction Operations to Minimize Impact on Adjacent
Neighborhoods;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-7.1: Design,
Installation, and Maintenance of Work Zones for High Consistency,
Visibility, and Safety;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-8.1: Durable Bridge
Subsystems;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-8.2: Design for Desired
Bridge Performance;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-8.3: Composite Pavement
Systems;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-8.4: Stabilization of
the Pavement Working Platform;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-8.5: Using Existing
Pavement in Place and Achieving Long Life;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-9.1: Nondestructive
Evaluation Methodology for Unknown Bridge Foundations;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-9.2: Development of
Rapid Renewal Inputs to Bridge Management and Inspection Systems;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-9.3: Monitoring and
Design of Structures for Improved Maintenance and Security;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-10.1: Preservation
Approaches for High Traffic Volume Roadways;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-10.2: Bridge Repair/
Strengthening Systems;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Project 1-10.3: Techniques for
Retrofitting Bridges with Non-redundant Structural Members;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Renewal projects identified in 2003: Total;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A]: 16;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B]: 5;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely: 17.
Source: GAO presentation of TRB and SHRP 2 information.
[A] For the purposes of this report, projects that "evolved" are those
that had their core research elements largely addressed in one or more
funded SHRP 2 projects.
[B] Some portion or portions of these projects were merged to form one
or more currently funded SHRP 2 projects.
[End of table]
Table 8: The 28 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Renewal Projects, as of
December 31, 2009:
Project number: R01;
Project title: Encouraging Innovation in Locating and Characterizing
Underground Utilities;
Project cost: $389,993;
Start date (approximately): 2/12/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 12/10/2011.
Project number: R01A;
Project title: Technologies to Support Storage, Retrieval, and
Utilization of 3-Dimensional Utility Location Data;
Project cost: $1,000,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/01/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 2/28/2012.
Project number: R01B;
Project title: Multi-sensor Platforms for Locating Underground
Utilities;
Project cost: $2,000,000;
Start date (approximately): 11/03/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 5/02/2012.
Project number: R01C;
Project title: Innovation in Location of Deep Utilities;
Project cost: $1,615,000;
Start date (approximately): 10/01/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 3/31/2012.
Project number: R02;
Project title: Geotechnical Solutions for Soil Improvement, Rapid
Embankment Construction, and Stabilization of the Pavement Working
Platform;
Project cost: $3,000,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/25/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 9/24/2011.
Project number: R03;
Project title: Identifying and Reducing Worker, Inspector, and Manager
Fatigue in Rapid Renewal Environments;
Project cost: $1,000,000;
Start date (approximately): 10/01/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 3/31/2012.
Project number: R04;
Project title: Innovative Bridge Designs for Rapid Renewal;
Project cost: $1,999,052;
Start date (approximately): 10/08/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 10/07/2011.
Project number: R05;
Project title: Modular Pavement Technology (Phase I: $200,000 and
Phase II: $800,000);
Project cost: $1,000,000;
Start date (approximately): 2/11/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 2/10/2011.
Project number: R06;
Project title: High Speed, Nondestructive Testing Procedures for Both
Design Evaluation and Construction Inspection;
Project cost: $350,000;
Start date (approximately): 3/16/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 7/11/2008.
Project number: R06A;
Project title: Nondestructive Testing to Identify Concrete Bridge Deck
Deterioration;
Project cost: $750,000;
Start date (approximately): 3/13/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 9/13/2011.
Project number: R06B;
Project title: Evaluating Applications of Field Spectroscopy Devices
to Fingerprint Commonly Used Construction Materials;
Project cost: $400,000;
Start date (approximately): 2/04/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 2/03/2011.
Project number: R06C;
Project title: Using Both Infrared and High-Speed Ground Penetrating
Radar for Uniformity Measurements on New HMA Layers;
Project cost: $250,000;
Start date (approximately): 3/06/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 3/05/2011.
Project number: R06D;
Project title: Nondestructive Testing to Identify Delaminations
between HMA Layers;
Project cost: $800,000;
Start date (approximately): 2/20/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 8/19/2011.
Project number: R06E;
Project title: Real-Time Smoothness Measurements on Portland Cement
Concrete Pavements During Construction;
Project cost: $550,000;
Start date (approximately): 2/20/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 8/19/2011.
Project number: R06F;
Project title: Development of Continuous Deflection Device;
Project cost: $250,000;
Start date (approximately): 4/29/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 4/28/2011.
Project number: R06G;
Project title: High-Speed Nondestructive Testing Methods for Mapping
Voids, Debonding, Delaminations, Moisture, and Other Defects Behind or
Within Tunnel Linings;
Project cost: $1,650,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/08/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 3/07/2012.
Project number: R07;
Project title: Performance Specifications for Rapid Renewal;
Project cost: $2,999,984;
Start date (approximately): 2/27/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 2/26/2012.
Project number: R09;
Project title: Risk Manual for Rapid Renewal Contracts;
Project cost: $249,961;
Start date (approximately): 12/21/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 6/20/2010.
Project number: R10;
Project title: Project Management Strategies for Complex Projects;
Project cost: $1,250,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/01/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 2/28/2012.
Project number: R11;
Project title: Strategic Approaches at the Corridor and Network Level
to Minimize Disruption from the Renewal Process;
Project cost: $1,500,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/03/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 3/02/2012.
Project number: R15;
Project title: Strategies for Integrating Utility and Transportation
Agency Priorities in Highway Renewal Projects;
Project cost: $250,000;
Start date (approximately): 2/05/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 8/04/2008.
Project number: R15B;
Project title: Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions;
Project cost: $300,000;
Start date (approximately): 3/04/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 7/03/2011.
Project number: R16;
Project title: Railroad-DOT Institutional Mitigation Strategies;
Project cost: $400,000;
Start date (approximately): 1/25/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 10/30/2009.
Project number: R19A;
Project title: Bridges for Service Life beyond 100 Years: Innovative
Systems, Subsystems, and Components;
Project cost: $1,999,637;
Start date (approximately): 12/21/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 12/20/2011.
Project number: R19B;
Project title: Bridges for Service Life beyond 100 Years: Service
Limit State Design;
Project cost: $999,990;
Start date (approximately): 9/03/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 3/02/2012.
Project number: R21;
Project title: Composite Pavement Systems;
Project cost: $3,999,999;
Start date (approximately): 9/04/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 9/03/2011.
Project number: R23;
Project title: Using Existing Pavement in Place and Achieving Long
Life;
Project cost: $999,540;
Start date (approximately): 2/11/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 2/10/2011.
Project number: R26;
Project title: Preservation Approaches for High Traffic Volumes
Roadways;
Project cost: $249,999;
Start date (approximately): 2/05/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 4/04/2010.
Project number: 28;
Project title: Total;
Project cost: $32,203,155.
Source: GAO presentation of SHRP 2 information.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Reliability Research Projects:
The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded many of the reliability projects
identified in the 2003 detailed research plans based on the
recommendations of the SHRP 2 reliability technical coordinating
committee. As a result, 13 of the 33 reliability projects identified
in 2003 either evolved or were partially merged into the currently
funded reliability projects and 20 were eliminated. Table 10 provides
information on the reliability projects identified in 2003 and how
they were reprioritized for funding. In addition, 4 funded projects,
which had not been identified in 2003, were developed to fill research
gaps or provide more affordable research alternatives. Table 11
provides information on the 21 currently funded SHRP 2 reliability
projects.
Table 9: How Reliability Projects Identified in 2003 Were
Reprioritized for Funding:
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-1.1: National and
International Scans of Best Practices in Traffic Incident, Weather,
Work Zone, and Special Event Management;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-1.2: National
Outreach Program for Transportation Operations Practices;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-2.1: Data
Requirements for Operations and Performance Monitoring;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-2.2: Establishing
National and Local Monitoring Programs for Mobility and Travel Time
Reliability;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-2.3: Analytic
Procedures for Determining the Impacts of Reliability Mitigation
Strategies;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-2.4: Incorporating
Reliability Estimation into Planning and Operations Modeling Tools;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-2.5: Incorporating
Mobility and Reliability Performance Metrics into the Transportation
Programming Process;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-2.6: Quantifying
the Costs of Travel Time Reliability;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-3.1: Institutional
Architectures for Implementation of Operational Strategies;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-3.2: Public
Official and Senior Management Education Program on the Benefits of
Improved Transportation Operations;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-3.3: Highway
Funding and Programming Structures to Promote Operations;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-3.4: Personnel
Requirements for Conducting Effective Traffic Incident, Work Zone, and
Special Event Management;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-4.1: Advanced
Surveillance Technologies for Operations;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-4.2: Technologies
to Communicate Traffic Control and Queue Propagation to Motorists;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-4.3: Systems for
Tracking Hazardous Material Movements Nationwide;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-5.1: Improvement in
Knowledge of Existing Weather and Pavement Conditions;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-5.2: Improved
Forecasting of Near-Term Weather and Pavement Conditions;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-5.3: Using Road
Weather, Safety, and Travel Reliability Data to Identify Ways to
Improve Travel Time Reliability;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-5.4: Development of
Better Mitigation Options for Weather Events;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-6.1: Identification
and Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Highway Design Features to
Reduce Nonrecurrent Congestion;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-6.2: Incorporation
of Nonrecurrent Congestion Factors into the Highway Capacity Manual;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-6.3: Incorporation
of Non-Recurrent Congestion Factors into the AASHTO Policy on
Geometric Design;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-6.4: The
Relationship between Recurring and Nonrecurring Congestion;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-7.1: Quantification
of the Causes and Effects of Inappropriate Driver Response to Adverse
Weather, Roadside Distractions, Traffic Incident Scenes, and Queues;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-7.2: Measures for
Reducing Inappropriate Driver Response to Adverse Weather, Roadside
Distractions, Traffic Incident Scenes, and Queues;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-7.3: Improving
Merging Behavior on Urban Freeways;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-8.1: Delay and
Reliability Impacts of Traveler Information Systems;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-8.2: Increasing the
Credibility of Travel Time Predictions with Travelers;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-8.3: Near-Term
Analysis of Traveler Information Market and Its Impact on Public-
Sector Operational Strategies;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-8.4: Real-Time Data
Fusion to Support Traveler Information Systems;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-9.1: Implementation
of Alternative Traffic Operation Strategies;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-9.2: Advanced Queue
and Traffic Incident Scene Management Techniques;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Project 3-9.3: Simulation and
Gaming Tools for Traffic Incident Response;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Reliability projects identified in 2003: Total;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A]: 12;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B]: 1;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely: 20.
Source: GAO presentation of TRB and SHRP 2 information.
[A] For the purposes of this report, projects that "evolved" are those
that had their core research elements largely addressed in one or more
funded SHRP 2 projects.
[B] Some portion or portions of these projects were merged to form one
or more currently funded SHRP 2 projects.
[End of table]
Table 10: The 21 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Reliability Projects, as of
December 31, 2009:
Project number: L01;
Project title: Integrating Business Processes to Improve Travel Time
Reliability;
Project cost: $397,789;
Start date (approximately): 2/25/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 12/31/2009.
Project number: L02;
Project title: Establishing Monitoring Programs for Mobility and
Travel Time Reliability;
Project cost: $1,800,000;
Start date (approximately): 3/18/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 3/17/2012.
Project number: L03;
Project title: Analytic Procedures for Determining the Impacts of
Reliability Mitigation Strategies;
Project cost: $1,749,998;
Start date (approximately): 2/27/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 2/28/2010.
Project number: L04;
Project title: Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures in
Operations and Planning Modeling Tools;
Project cost: v1,250,000;
Start date (approximately): 2/06/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 2/16/2012.
Project number: L05;
Project title: Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the
Transportation Planning and Programming Processes;
Project cost: $1,500,000;
Start date (approximately): 2/01/2010;
Completion date (approximately): 1/31/2012.
Project number: L06;
Project title: Institutional Architectures to Advance Operational
Strategies;
Project cost: $1,000,000;
Start date (approximately): 2/28/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 2/15/2010.
Project number: L07;
Project title: Evaluation of Cost-Effectiveness of Highway Design
Features to Improve Travel Time Reliability;
Project cost: $2,750,000;
Start date (approximately): 1/07/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 1/06/2012.
Project number: L08;
Project title: Incorporating Non-Recurrent Congestion Factors into the
Highway Capacity Manual Methods;
Project cost: $500,000;
Start date (approximately): 1/03/2011;
Completion date (approximately): 5/31/2012.
Project number: L09;
Project title: Incorporating Non-Recurrent Congestion Factors into the
AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design;
Project cost: $500,000;
Start date (approximately): 1/03/2011;
Completion date (approximately): 5/31/2012.
Project number: L10;
Project title: Feasibility of Using In-Vehicle Video Data to Explore
How to Modify Driver Behavior that Causes Non-Recurring Congestion;
Project cost: $300,000;
Start date (approximately): 1/08/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 4/30/2010.
Project number: L10A, L10B, &;
L10C;
Project title: Using In-Vehicle Data to Explore How to Modify Driver
Behavior That Causes Non-Recurring Congestion;
Project cost: $1,200,000;
Start date (approximately): 1/03/2011;
Completion date (approximately): 5/31/2012.
Project number: L11;
Project title: Evaluating Alternative Operations Strategies to Improve
Travel Time Reliability;
Project cost: $1,000,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/03/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 3/02/2010.
Project number: L12;
Project title: Training and Certification of Traffic Incident
Responders;
Project cost: $999,942;
Start date (approximately): 3/19/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 6/18/2010.
Project number: L13;
Project title: Requirements and Feasibility of a System for Archiving
and Disseminating Data from SHRP 2 and Related Studies;
Project cost: $374,919;
Start date (approximately): 9/24/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 3/31/2010.
Project number: L13A;
Project title: Design and Implement a System for Archiving and
Disseminating Data from SHRP 2 and Related Studies;
Project cost: $1,135,000;
Start date (approximately): 2/01/2011;
Completion date (approximately): 1/31/2012.
Project number: L14;
Project title: Effectiveness of Different Approaches: Traveler
Information and Travel Time Reliability;
Project cost: $1,000,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/01/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 8/31/2011.
Project number: L15;
Project title: Reliability Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis;
Project cost: $500,000;
Start date (approximately): 6/01/2010;
Completion date (approximately): 2/28/2012.
Project number: L16;
Project title: Assistance to Contractors to Archive Their Data for
Reliability and Related Projects;
Project cost: $350,000;
Start date (approximately): 7/01/2010;
Completion date (approximately): 2/28/2012.
Project number: L17;
Project title: A Framework for Improving Travel Time Reliability;
Project cost: $1,800,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/01/2010;
Completion date (approximately): 2/28/2012.
Project number: 21;
Project title: Total;
Project cost: $20,107,648;
Start date (approximately): [Empty];
Completion date (approximately): [Empty].
Source: GAO presentation of SHRP 2 information.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Capacity Research Projects:
The SHRP 2 oversight committee funded many of the capacity projects
identified in the 2003 detailed research plans based on the
recommendations of the SHRP 2 capacity technical coordinating
committee. As a result, 13 of the 20 capacity projects identified in
2003 either evolved or were partially merged into the currently funded
capacity projects and 7 were eliminated. Table 12 provides information
on the capacity projects identified in 2003 and how they were
reprioritized for funding. In addition, 2 funded projects, which had
not been identified in 2003, were developed to fill research gaps or
provide more affordable research alternatives. Table 13 provides
information on the 20 currently funded SHRP 2 capacity projects.
Table 11: How Capacity Projects Identified in 2003 Were Reprioritized
for Funding:
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-1.1: Improving Our
Understanding of Highway Users and the Factors Affecting Travel Demand;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-1.2: Improving Our
Understanding of Transportation System Performance;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-1.3: Understanding the
Contribution of Operations, Technology, and Design to Meeting Highway
Capacity Needs;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-1.4: Improving Our
Understanding of Approaches to Integrate Watershed and Habitat
Fragmentation Considerations into Transportation Planning and
Development, with an Emphasis on Highways;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-1.5: Improving Our
Understanding of Interactions between Transportation Capacity and
Economic Systems;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-1.6: Improving Our
Understanding of the Relationship between Highway Capacity Projects
and Land Use Patterns;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-2.1: Applying
Location- and Tracking-Based Technologies to Collect Data for Systems
Planning and Project Development;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-2.2: Applying Remote
Sensing Technologies to Collect Data for Transportation Systems
Planning and Project Development;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-2.3: Facilitating
Systems Planning and Project Development via an Integrated
Environmental Resource Information System;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-2.4: Improving Public
Participation by Enhancing Project Visualization Tools;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-2.5: Developing and
Applying a Decision-Support Tool for Integrated Systems Planning and
Project Development;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-3.1: Integrating
Environmental Stewardship and Enhancement into System Planning and
Project Development;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A].
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-3.2: Integrating
Economic Considerations into Project Development;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-3.3: Reducing
Duplication and Process Delays in Planning and Project Development;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-3.4: Ensuring Support
for Highway Capacity Projects by Improving Collaborative Decision
Making;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-3.5: Improving the
Quality and Timeliness of Projects via Better Public Involvement;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-3.6: Screening
Transportation Solutions in an Integrated Systems Planning and Project
Development Process;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-4.1: Improving Project
Management during the Development and Delivery of Highway Projects;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-4.2: Improving Project
Cost Estimates;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely.
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Project 4-4.3: Satisfying
Commitments and Meeting Customer Expectations in Final Project Design
and Construction;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B].
Capacity projects identified in 2003: Total;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project evolved into SHRP 2 projects[A]: 7;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project had elements merged with other SHRP 2
projects[B]: 6;
SHRP 2 funding decision: Project was eliminated entirely: 7.
Source: GAO presentation of TRB and SHRP 2 information.
[A] For the purposes of this report, projects that "evolved" are those
that had their core research elements largely addressed in one or more
funded SHRP 2 projects.
[B] Some portion or portions of these projects were merged to form one
or more currently funded SHRP 2 projects.
[End of table]
Table 12: The 20 Currently Funded SHRP 2 Capacity Projects, as of
December 31, 2009:
Project number: C01;
Project title: A Framework for Collaborative Decision-Making on
Additions to Highway Capacity;
Project cost: $4,249,994;
Start date (approximately): 2/09/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 3/31/2012.
Project number: C02;
Project title: A Systems-Based Performance Measurement Framework for
Highway Capacity Decision-Making;
Project cost: $825,000;
Start date (approximately): 2/28/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 10/30/2009.
Project number: C03;
Project title: Interactions Between Transportation Capacity, Economic
Systems, and Land Use Merged with Integrating Economic Considerations
Project Development;
Project cost: $2,149,997;
Start date (approximately): 1/15/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 12/31/2010.
Project number: C04;
Project title: Improving Our Understanding of Highway Users and the
Factors Affecting Travel Demand;
Project cost: $1,000,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/21/2007;
Completion date (approximately): 6/10/2010.
Project number: C05;
Project title: Understanding the Contribution of Operations,
Technology, and Design to Meeting Highway Capacity Needs;
Project cost: $1,000,000;
Start date (approximately): 1/07/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 9/30/2009.
Project number: C06A;
Project title: Integration of Conservation, Highway Planning, and
Environmental Permitting Using an Outcome-Based Ecosystem Approach;
Project cost: $700,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/03/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 3/02/2011.
Project number: C06B;
Project title: Development of an Ecological Assessment Process and
Credits System for Enhancements to Highway Capacity;
Project cost: $792,648;
Start date (approximately): 10/10/2008;
Completion date (approximately): 10/11/2010.
Project number: C08;
Project title: Linking Community Visions and Highway Capacity Planning;
Project cost: $800,000;
Start date (approximately): 2/04/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 8/03/2010.
Project number: C09;
Project title: Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the
Collaborative Decision-Making Process;
Project cost: $800,000;
Start date (approximately): 2/10/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 8/09/2010.
Project number: C10A;
Project title: Partnership to Develop an Integrated, Advanced Travel
Demand Model and a Fine-Grained, Time-Sensitive Network;
Project cost: $1,400,000;
Start date (approximately): 8/13/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 2/12/2012.
Project number: C10B;
Project title: Partnership to Develop an Integrated, Advanced Travel
Demand Model and a Fine-Grained, Time-Sensitive Network;
Project cost: $2,599,999;
Start date (approximately): 9/01/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 2/28/2012.
Project number: C11;
Project title: Development of Improved Economic Analysis Tools Based
on Recommendations from Project C03;
Project cost: $200,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/01/2010;
Completion date (approximately): 3/31/2012.
Project number: C12;
Project title: The Effect of Public-Private Partnerships and Non-
Traditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental
Review, and Collaborative Decision-Making;
Project cost: $300,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/01/2010;
Completion date (approximately): 1/31/2012.
Project number: C15;
Project title: Integrating Freight Considerations into Collaborative
Decision-Making for Additions to Highway Capacity;
Project cost: $300,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/01/2010;
Completion date (approximately): 1/31/2012.
Project number: C16;
Project title: The Effect of Smart Growth Policies on Travel Demand;
Project cost: 425,000;
Start date (approximately): 1/03/2011;
Completion date (approximately): 3/31/2012.
Project number: C18;
Project title: Pilot Test the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework
with Three State Departments of Transportation, Including a Self-
Assessment Method;
Project cost: $1,250,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/01/2010;
Completion date (approximately): 3/31/2012.
Project number: C19;
Project title: Add Expedited-Schedule Case Studies to the
Collaborative Decision-Making Framework Data Base;
Project cost: $300,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/01/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 8/31/2010.
Project number: C20;
Project title: Freight Demand Modeling and Data Improvement Strategic
Plan;
Project cost: $550,000;
Start date (approximately): 9/01/2009;
Completion date (approximately): 2/28/2011.
Project number: C21;
Project title: Pilot Test Approaches to Environmental Protection
(using projects C06 A and C06 B);
Project cost: $1,250,000;
Start date (approximately): 1/03/2011;
Completion date (approximately): 3/31/2012.
Project number: C22;
Project title: Prepare Decision Makers Guide to Collaborative Decision-
Making Framework;
Project cost: $200,000;
Start date (approximately): 1/03/2011;
Completion date (approximately): 12/31/2012.
Project number: 20;
Project title: Total;
Project cost: $21,092,638.
Source: GAO presentation of SHRP 2 information.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Kathleen Turner, Assistant
Director; Vashun Cole; Silvia Arbelaez-Ellis; Dana Hopings; and Amy
Rosewarne made important contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Highway Bridge Program: Clearer Goals and Performance
Measures Needed for a More Focused and Sustainable Program, GAO-08-
1043 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2008). Structurally deficient
bridges have a component, such as the bridge deck, in poor condition
because of deterioration or damage, while functionally obsolete
bridges are those with a poor configuration or a design that may no
longer be adequate for the traffic they serve.
[2] Texas Transportation Institute, 2009 Urban Mobility Report
(College Station, 2009).
[3] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008 Traffic
Safety Annual Assessment, (Washington, D.C.: June 2009).
[4] The National Research Council's mission is to improve government
decision making and public policy, increase public education and
understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of
knowledge in matters involving science, engineering, technology, and
health.
[5] TRB, Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives,
Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, (Washington, D.C.:
November 2001). The report recommended that the program receive 0.25
percent of the federal-aid highway funds from the Highway Trust Fund.
This fund is used to distribute highway funding to states based on a
formula specified in statute.
[6] The work, conducted through the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, was performed to develop the detailed plans and
projects needed to execute the framework for research outlined in
Special Report 260.
[7] National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 510: Interim
Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program: Summary
Report (Washington, D.C.: October 2003).
[8] Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (August 10, 2005). This law
also authorized funding for numerous programs, including highway
safety, transit, transportation research, and federal-aid highways.
The federal-aid highway program is a federally assisted, state-
administered program.
[9] AASHTO is a nonprofit association that represents highway and
transportation departments in the 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico.
[10] TRB, Special Report 261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and
Technology, (Washington, D.C.: December 2001).
[11] The American Association of State Highway Officials, or AASHO,
was renamed AASHTO in 1973.
[12] TRB, Special Report 261.
[13] In 1984, TRB issued Special Report 202: America's Highways:
Accelerating the Search For Innovation, which recommended the creation
of a national research program to focus on unaddressed but high-
priority research areas. In response, the Surface Transportation and
Uniform Relocation Act, enacted in 1987, reauthorized the federal-aid
highway program and authorized the National Research Council to
implement SHRP. Congress initially provided approximately $150 million
over 5 years to conduct the research. However, after this research was
completed, Congress provided an additional $108 million to implement
the research.
[14] The memorandum of understanding also enabled the SHRP 2 oversight
committee to create technical advisory committees to assist TRB in
carrying out the research program. These committees were formed in
2006.
[15] As of early November 2009, 55 expert task groups had been formed.
According to TRB's manual for conducting research and preparing
proposals for SHRP 2, the task groups consider several factors in
making their recommendations: the (1) applicant's demonstrated
understanding of the problem; (2) merit of the proposed research
approach and methodology; (3) experience, qualifications, and
objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related
problem areas; (4) applicant's plan for involving small firms owned
and controlled by minorities or women; and (5) adequacy of the
applicant's facilities and equipment.
[16] In forming its funding recommendations for Special Report 260,
TRB assumed that the formula used to fund SHRP (i.e., 0.25 percent of
the federal-aid highway funds from the Highway Trust Fund) would be
used to fund SHRP 2. Thus, TRB recommended that SHRP 2 receive about
$450 million over 6 years.
[17] SAFETEA-LU authorized the Secretary of DOT to make grants and
enter into cooperative agreements with AASHTO and the National Academy
of Sciences to carry out activities needed to establish SHRP 2. (Sec.
510(b).)
[18] According to FHWA officials, the total cost of SHRP 2 and other
research programs authorized in SAFETEA-LU exceeded the budget
authority available for these programs. As a result, funding for all
of the research programs had to be reduced.
[19] Each research project refers to an individual contract awarded,
or expected to be awarded, to carry out specific research.
[20] The recommended funding percentages in Special Report 260 were
based, in part, on budget information from previous highway research
studies.
[21] The naturalistic driving study will be conducted in six
locations: Tampa, Florida; Bloomington, Indiana; Raleigh-Durham, North
Carolina; Erie County, New York; central Pennsylvania; and Seattle,
Washington. Data collection is expected to begin in the summer of 2010
and to continue until late 2012.
[22] Because near-collision events occur more frequently than actual
accidents, data on these events are expected to offer valuable
insights into factors leading to actual accidents.
[23] According to Special Report 260, such accidents account for one-
third of highway fatalities.
[24] According to Special Report 296, such accidents account for 45
percent of all reported accidents.
[25] The SHRP 2 staff noted that accurately locating and
characterizing underground utilities to protect or relocate utilities
is a major, if not the primary, cause of delay in highway renewal
projects. Such delays can extend the period of project development and
delay the initiation of construction. In addition, damage to
underground utilities can raise environmental, health, and safety
concerns.
[26] According to TRB, the Highway Capacity Manual is the principal
reference used by highway designers in making decisions about highway
construction and operational improvements. AASHTO's Policy on
Geometric Design for Highways and Streets provides guidance on
appropriate dimensions for highway facilities and is used to develop
design guidelines for freeways, conventional highways, and urban
streets.
[27] Countermeasures include key roadway design characteristics, such
as grade and curvature, and roadway treatments, such as rumble strips,
signage, and markings.
[28] Additionally, according to SHRP 2 staff, the countermeasure
projects were similar to other ongoing safety research.
[29] While many of the projects identified in 2003 involving partners,
such as states and metropolitan planning organizations, were
eliminated, according to FHWA officials and SHRP 2 staff, two of these
projects were retained. The first of the retained projects involves
field testing the collaborative decision-making framework, while the
second involves field-testing approaches to mitigate environmental
impacts.
[30] TRB, Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving
Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, (Washington,
D.C.: November 2001).
[31] TRB, Special Report 261: The Federal Role in Highway Research and
Technology, (Washington, D.C.: December 2001).
[32] TRB, Special Report 296: Implementing the Results of the Second
Strategic Highway Research Program: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion,
Improving Quality of Life, (Washington, D.C.: April 2009).
[33] National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 510: Interim
Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program: Summary
Report, (Washington, D.C.: October 2003).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
