Editor's Notes
Along the Road
Internet Watch
Recent
Publications
Calendar
NHI Update
Order Online
Contact Info
Past Issues
Public Roads
Home
|
The
Partnership Initiative: A Unified Agenda for Highway Research and Technology
by Michael Halladay
Advancing innovation is
the mainstay of our continued journey toward creating the safest and most efficient
and effective highway and intermodal transportation system in the world. Research
and technological advances can ultimately make the difference between success
and failure, and indeed, when safety is concerned, between life and death.
Investing in innovation has been a continuing feature of federal funding for
surface transportation. Congress supports important highway research and technology
(R&T) programs that advance highway safety, heighten the economic efficiency
of the nation's transportation system, help preserve and enhance the environment,
and continually improve the public's access to activities, goods, and services.
Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater agrees. The secretary has spoken
of a transportation vision that meets the needs of the American people by building
a transportation system that is International in reach, Intermodal in form,
Intelligent in character, and Inclusive in service. Secretary Slater's fifth
"I" is "Innovative in scope," and the Department of Transportation
(DOT) is taking actions to significantly advance innovation in transportation
R&T.
To Put It In Perspective
In 1920, the three standing technical committees of the Transportation Research
Board (TRB) could collectively handle all the coordination of highway research
that was needed - or, at least, desired. Over the years, surface transportation
R&T needs have burgeoned, and the range of research topic areas has grown.
At the same time, highway R&T has become increasingly decentralized. Highway
R&T now spans many sectors of the economy and involves federal, state, and
local governments; universities; transportation research centers; associations;
and private industry. Communication and coordination has become exponentially
more complex.
For example, the number of TRB entities has grown to 190 committees and task
forces organized by division, group, and section. About 3,000 of the nation's
top administrators, engineers, social scientists, attorneys, educators, and
others concerned with transportation serve on TRB committees and task forces
to advance knowledge of the nature and performance of transportation systems.
And that's just TRB alone.
Highway R&T is a multimillion-dollar industry in the United States. In fiscal
year 2000, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) alone has $180 million
authorized for R&T activities, not including Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS), which has a separate budget. States will spend on the order of
$130 million this year, and another $29 million will be spent in multistate
cooperative research through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
It is estimated that private industry will spend upwards of $100 million.
A Unified Voice
FHWA has typically received a lion's share of highway-related R&T funding
from Congress, and FHWA has traditionally taken the lead in prioritizing needs,
developing programs, and expending those funds.
In the 1970s and '80s, through the Nationally Coordinated Program (NCP), FHWA
researchers actively brought people and ideas together to identify R&T priorities
and gaps. In the late '80s and early '90s, a significant portion of FHWA's R&T
resources and focus were directed toward major new programs - such as ITS, implementation
of the products developed in the Strategic Highway Research Program, and others
- decreasing the attention paid to NCP.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), enacted in 1998,
funded total highway R&T at slightly higher levels than previous years.
But this time, the funds had more strings attached. Congress shifted R&T
resources and program flexibility away from FHWA; a higher portion of R&T
funding was allocated to others, including state departments of transportation
and universities.
Within the R&T community, many took Congress's action as a wake-up call.
Whereas, in the past, FHWA had the predominant voice, it was now clear that
the many diverse voices throughout the transportation community needed to come
together in harmony to articulate the overall value and priorities for highway
R&T. More collaboration was needed between all stakeholders interested in
transportation R&T investment. The R&T process needed to be broader
and more inclusive.
Inclusive Governing
Bringing together the many, many voices is just what leaders at FHWA, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and TRB
envisioned when planning a new framework for aligning R&T activities among
research sponsors, practitioners, researchers, and other stakeholders.
This new framework, called the National Research and Technology Partnership
Initiative, has several main goals:
- Make R&T investments
more effective and efficient through broad-based stakeholder involvement and
greater interaction among research programs and sponsors.
- Foster a greater awareness
and appreciation of existing research programs - a sense of ownership that
extends beyond the research sponsors.
- Stimulate the formation
of productive R&T partnerships, which could include jointly funded projects,
projects funded by different sponsors, research consortia, and joint public
and private initiatives.
- Help demonstrate the
needs and opportunities for research and the potential payoff from research
investments, and thereby help expand the constituencies for highway R&T.
By broadening the range
of interaction within the user community, leaders hope to strengthen a national
consensus on the need for highway R&T and to help provide a sense of priorities
for highway R&T. This will lead to a national R&T agenda and the outlining
of appropriate roles for all participants in implementing a robust R&T program.
This broadening of contacts also helps FHWA focus federal R&T investments
on priority needs that call for a strong federal role.
Innovation does not occur in a vacuum. It is the result of many minds learning
from each other, collaborating with shared vision and enthusiasm. The framework
does not replace existing mechanisms for managing research or disseminating
research findings. Instead, its main intent is to better coordinate investments
from all partners in highway R&T programs.
How It Works
TRB has assumed an active convening role in bringing the Partnership Initiative
to fruition. This role is a natural outgrowth of TRB's mission to promote innovation
and progress in transportation, and its position as an independent forum for
advancing R&T.
The definition of the Partnership Initiative framework is evolving. But at its
core are working groups representing broad-based research topic areas. Five
have been identified: safety, operations and mobility, infrastructure renewal,
policy evaluation and system monitoring, and planning and environment.
Each working group (with the exception of planning and environment) is open
to all who express an interest. An existing TRB committee, the Surface Transportation
Environmental Cooperative Research Program Advisory Board, is serving the dual
functions of the Environment and Planning Working Group and of the Advisory
Board, as outlined in TEA-21.
The Advisory Board membership
is balanced with members from the transportation and environment communities
representing academia, states, metropolitan planning organizations, transit,
industry, and environmental organizations. The Advisory Board/working group
strongly encourages input and feedback, as do all of the Partnership Initiative
working groups. The Advisory Board has a Web site (http://gulliver.nationalacademies.org/~advisory).
TRB has identified chairpersons for each of the working groups and is providing
a "secretary" to each group to assist with organization and logistics.
Existing research committees will feed their opinions and information to the
working groups.
A working group is simply a clearinghouse of ideas that will then be organized,
expanded upon, and disseminated. This clearinghouse includes ideas on how research
and technology would advance the working group's main topic focus (for example,
safety or infrastructure renewal).
The working groups provide a forum for stakeholders to share their plans, receive
feedback, and explore potential partnerships. Working groups will then make
recommendations about gaps, strategic priorities, or particular program areas.
The working groups have been charged with identifying major issues in their
area of interest, reviewing existing R&T programs, assessing the coverage
relative to current issues to identify gaps and overlaps, determining high-priority
R&T areas, publicizing the benefits of proposed future R&T initiatives,
and facilitating partnerships to carry out these initiatives.
An Optimal Mix
Opening the doors to the broader community also risks the possibility of being
inundated with too many people, too many opinions, and too broad a playing field.
Leaders of the Partnership Initiative are willing to take this risk, however,
for the sake of the collaborative process.
For example, at the first meetings of the Operations and Mobility Working Group,
many traditional and long-standing traffic and transit members were present.
Their participation is highly valued. Nevertheless, expanding participation
to include freight haulers, providers of emergency medical services, parking
structure managers, and others would also be valuable, and the expanded participation
was subsequently sought.
Similarly, Partnership Initiative leaders want representatives of asphalt and
concrete industry groups along with engineers and contractors responsible for
infrastructure improvement to be part of the Infrastructure Renewal Working
Group.
Project sponsors are also an active part of the process. "Sponsors"
may include any entity that funds highway R&T. These include FHWA, private
sector associations, universities, state departments of transportation, corporations,
the vehicle manufacturing industry, and construction materials manufacturers
and suppliers.
In a collaborative process, "customer" becomes "partner"
in creating and executing joint opportunities. All of these groups working together
will produce more than the sum of their parts.
Pulling It All Together
It is difficult for a single entity to simultaneously possess the capability
for sustained oversight of this partnership framework and to satisfy the need
for shared participation and inclusiveness. Oversight and facilitation generally
require in-depth work by a few; inclusiveness requires participation by many.
Whereas the working groups satisfy the requirement to be inclusive, a larger
"organizing" body is also seen as beneficial. The Research and Technology
Coordinating Committee (RTCC) promises one arena for nurturing and monitoring
the framework.
RTCC is a special TRB committee of about 17 members drawn from top officials
in state departments of transportation, university and private-sector research
agencies, highway suppliers, contractors and consultants, local government officials,
highway users, and environmental and highway safety specialists.
RTCC provides formal consensus-based guidance to FHWA on highway research and
technology opportunities and priorities. Their challenge is to create an environment
in which the sometimes divergent perspectives and priorities are heard. Through
this process, the sharing of a common vision can come about.
RTCC has been asked to take an active role in the Partnership Initiative - first,
by assigning a liaison to each working group, and second, by reviewing the working
groups'reports on R&T needs and opportunities. RTCC then expects to provide
an overall report on the national highway research and technology program.
The working groups will probably also report their findings through other means.
Stakeholders and the public will have an opportunity to carry forward their
ideas into specific programs and projects.
The Continuum
The Committee for Study of a Future Strategic Highway Research Program (F-SHRP),
a separate TRB committee that shares some common members with RTCC, is currently
evaluating long-term research priorities. The F-SHRP Committee is responsible
for identifying and fostering the next great breakthroughs in highways over
the longer term (say, within the next 12 to 15 years). An F-SHRP report is due
in 2001.
The Partnership Initiative, on the other hand, expects to focus on near- and
mid-term R&T needs, including collaboration on existing research. Efforts
should also transcend the immediate short-term legislative and budget needs
to foster true long-term collaborative partnerships.
The working groups are planning to prepare initial reports by late 2000. Ideally,
the working group recommendations will support and compliment the F-SHRP recommendations
and vice versa, forming a highway-related R&T continuum for the next decade
or two.
What the Future Holds
FHWA, TRB, and AASHTO stand firmly behind the development of a new way of achieving
consensus about the national R&T agenda. As with any new program, there
will be a continuing need for refinement - perhaps even radical changes to meet
the overall intent.
The evolution of the Partnership Initiative after the individual working groups
and RTCC have developed their reports will continue to be discussed as part
of the collaborative process. The working groups may continue to serve in a
collaborative and advisory role. They may disband and be replaced by different
functional groups.
Regardless of how the next major phases manifest themselves, establishing a
strong framework of doing business is an imperative to achieving true innovation
in highway R&T. And setting reasonable expectations about what the framework
can and cannot do will avoid disappointments. More importantly, it will help
keep participants focused on the areas where we can achieve the most positive
results.
A
Working Group in Action
The working groups are off and running. Here's an inside look at the inner
workings of the Safety Working Group.
The Safety Working Group held its first national Safety Agenda Workshop
on Jan. 8, 2000. Thirty-eight people participated, including representatives
from federal, state, and local government, and the private sector. At this
first meeting and at a subsequent smaller task force meeting, the group
developed its vision and mission statements, and it identified key components
of its ultimate report.
"We received some excellent input during these initial meetings, which
helped lay the foundation for the Safety Agenda, and we identified several
key research concerns," said Leanna Depue, director of the Missouri
Safety Center at Central Missouri State University and co-chair of the working
group.
"Our objective is to identify the most promising short- and long-term
research, development, and implementation activities that result in precipitous
reductions in deaths, injuries, and crashes," said Thomas Bryer, director
of the Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering at the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation, and working group co-chair. "The process
includes input and consensus-building from the entire safety stakeholder
community - no easy task."
The group identified eight key theme areas, including high-risk driving,
highway infrastructure and operations, and survivability in crashes.
They developed a year-long schedule to see the report preparation process
through to its completion.
"The working group itself is composed of a wide spectrum of participants,"
Depue said. "But we are planning additional mechanisms to garner additional
input from a larger group of stakeholders. For example, our work will be
posted on the Web site for everyone to see. We will be submitting the draft
report to nearly 100 individuals around the country for review. And we will
be holding a workshop in June to receive in-person comment and discussion."
The group plans to finalize the document in October and make it available
to the public by the end of the year. |
Your Voice Counts!
Please join us! Everyone with an interest in transportation research and
development is invited to provide input or to participate as an active member
of one of the five working groups or as an informed observer of the process.
You can find out more about the National Research and Technology Partnership
Initiative on TRB's Web page at www4.nas.edu/trb/homepage.nsf.
Keep abreast of the latest developments by regularly visiting TRB's new
Web site conferencing feature. The software, called WebBoard, allows open
conferences in which public users may view and post comments for discussion.
Moderated conferences permit the conference managers to guide and shape
discussion forums.
Additional online conferences can be established to facilitate the flow
of information among working group and committee members. The WebBoard can
be found at www4.nas.edu/trb/homepage.nsf/web/r&t_forum. |
For more information
about the Partnership Initiative, contact Michael Halladay at (202) 493-3172
or Michael.Halladay@fhwa.dot.gov.
Michael Halladay
is a senior program manager in the Federal Highway Administration's Office of
Research, Development, and Technology, and he is a facilitator of the Partnership
Initiative. Halladay was formerly the chief of the Technology Management Division
within FHWA's Office of Technology Applications (OTA), where he managed FHWA's
SHRP Implementation Program and served as the secretary to the AASHTO SHRP Implementation
Task Force. Halladay joined FHWA in 1975, and his career has included assignments
in federal-aid, design, construction, motor carrier safety, intelligent transportation
systems, planning, and research and technology programs. He has a bachelor's
degree in civil engineering from Duke University, and he is a registered professional
engineer in Virginia.
Articles & Departments
The First Issue of Public Roads
IDAS Integrates ITS Into Planning Process
Turbo Architecture
Communities of Practice
Middle School Students Design Future Cities
The Partnership Initiative
An Australian Road Review
Advantages of the Split Intersection
One Mile in Five: Debunking the Myth
National Transportation Week
Annual Index
|
