Highway Research: Systematic Selection and Evaluation Processes
Needed for Research Program (24-MAY-02, GAO-02-573).
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has received hundreds
of millions of dollars for its surface transportation research
and technology program during the past decade. For example, in
1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century,
included over $447 million for fiscal year 2002 for FHWA's
transportation research and technology efforts for six-year
period of 1998 through 2003. FHWA's research and technology
program is complex because each of the program offices within the
agency are responsible for identifying research needs,
formulating strategies to address transportation problems, and
setting goals that support the agency's strategic goals. One
business unit at FHWA's research laboratory provides support for
administering the overall program and conducts some of the
research. The agency's leadership team provides periodic
oversight of the overall program. FHWA's processes for managing
the research and technology program, and in particular for
developing research agendas and evaluating research outcomes
against intended results, do not always align with the best
practices for similar federal research and technology programs.
FHWA acknowledges that its approach for developing research
agenda and involving external stakeholders in determining the
direction of the program's research lacks a consistent,
transparent, and systematic process. Instead, most external
stakeholder involvement is ad hoc through technical committees
and professional societies. The agency primarily uses a "success
story" approach to evaluate its research outcomes. While this
approach shows some benefits, it cannot be used as the primary
method to evaluate the outcomes of the research because these
stories represent only a fraction of the program's completed
research projects. As a result of its relatively varied
processes, it is unclear whether the organization is selecting
research projects that have the highest potential value, or what
is the extent to which these projects have achieved their
objectives.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-573
ACCNO: A03396
TITLE: Highway Research: Systematic Selection and Evaluation
Processes Needed for Research Program
DATE: 05/24/2002
SUBJECT: Best practices
Federal aid for transportation
Internal controls
Program evaluation
Research program management
Transportation research
Funds management
DOT University Transportation Centers
Program
National Cooperative Highway Research
Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-573
Report to Congressional Committees
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
May 2002 HIGHWAY RESEARCH
Systematic Selection and Evaluation Processes Needed for Research Program
GAO- 02- 573
Page i GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program Letter 1
Results in Brief 2 Background 4 FHWA?s Surface Transportation Research and
Technology
Program?s Organization Is Complex and Decentralized 6 FHWA Processes for
Developing Research Agendas and Evaluating
Research Outcomes Do Not Always Follow Best Practices for Federal Research
Programs 12 Conclusions 18 Recommendations for Executive Action 19 Agency
Comments and Our Evaluation 19
Appendix I Funding Information for FHWA?s Research and Technology Program 22
Appendix II Federal Highway Administration Organization Charts 30
Tables
Table 1: Roles of Business Units in Research and Technology 7 Table 2:
Research and Technology Program Allocations by
Program Area, Fiscal Years 1992- 1997 24 Table 3: Research and Technology
Program Allocations by
Program Area, Fiscal Years 1998- 2001 26 Table 4: Surface Transportation
Research and Technology
Deployment Funds, Designations in Statutes and Committee Reports, Fiscal
Year 2000 28 Table 5: Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Deployment Funds, Designations in Statutes and Committee Reports, Fiscal
Year 2001 28 Table 6: Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Deployment Funds, Designations in Statutes and Committee Reports, Fiscal
Year 2002 29 Contents
Page ii GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program Figures
Figure 1: Distribution of Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Deployment Funds, Fiscal Year 2002 9 Figure 2: Federal Highway
Administration?s Funding for Research
and Technology Program, Fiscal Years 1992- 2001 23 Figure 3: FHWA?s
Organization Chart before 1998 Restructuring 30 Figure 4: FHWA?s
Organization Chart after 1998 Restructuring 31
Abbreviations
DOT Department of Transportation FHWA Federal Highway Administration RTCC
Research and Technology Coordinating Committee
Page 1 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
May 24, 2002 The Honorable Harold Rogers Chairman The Honorable Martin Sabo
Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation Committee on
Appropriations House of Representatives
The Honorable Patty Murray Chairman The Honorable Richard Shelby Ranking
Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Throughout the past decade, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
received hundreds of millions of dollars for its surface transportation
research and technology program. For example, in 1998 the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, which authorized the Department of
Transportation?s (DOT) transportation programs for highways, highway safety,
and transit for the 6- year period of 1998 through 2003, included over $447
million for fiscal year 2002 for FHWA?s transportation research and
technology efforts. These efforts included programs for surface
transportation research, technology deployment, intelligent transportation
systems, training and education, university transportation research, and the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. In addition to providing funding, this
authorization required DOT to establish a strategic focus for its surface
transportation research and technology program. As it considers
reauthorizing this program, Congress will be making decisions on the future
characteristics of the program and the level of resources it should receive.
As a result of congressional concern about the efficient and effective use
of the research funds provided for FHWA, the House Committee on
Appropriations report accompanying the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2002 directed us to review FHWA?s
surface transportation research and technology program by evaluating program
benefits and identifying successful programs and problems. In response, as
agreed with your staff, this report discusses
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
(1) the organization of FHWA?s research and technology program and (2) the
extent to which FHWA?s processes for developing research agendas and
evaluating research outcomes align with the best practices for similar
federal research programs. We are also providing information on funding for
this program since fiscal year 1991 (see app. I). Except where otherwise
noted, this report focuses primarily on those activities funded by the
surface transportation research and technology deployment categories
identified in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. However,
all categories of funding are presented in our discussion of historical
funding for the agency?s research and technology program.
To address these issues we obtained information from FHWA officials,
including representatives of each of its five core business units and three
of its eight service business units, on how the research and technology
program is organized and on FHWA?s processes for developing research agendas
and evaluating research outcomes. We reviewed program documents, including
budget allocations and department and agency strategic plans, as well as
relevant legislation. We analyzed and presented data on agency funding of
the program since fiscal year 1991. We also contacted or met with
representatives of DOT?s Research and Special Programs Administration, the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the
Transportation Research Board. 1 We also reviewed various publications on
best practices in federal research from the Transportation Research Board
and the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. We selected
these publications on best practices because they were most relevant to the
program aspects we reviewed and to federal agencies that support scientific
and engineering research. We conducted our review from August 2001 through
May 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
FHWA?s research and technology program?s organization is complex and
decentralized throughout the agency. The program?s organization is complex
because each of the program offices within the agency (called business
units) is responsible for identifying research needs, formulating
1 The Transportation Research Board is a unit of the National Research
Council, a private, nonprofit institution that is the principal operating
agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering. The board?s mission is to promote innovation and progress in
transportation by motivating and conducting research, facilitating the
dissemination of information, and encouraging the implementation of research
results. Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
strategies to address transportation problems, and setting goals for
research and technology activities that support the agency?s strategic
goals. One business unit that is located at FHWA?s research laboratory
provides support for administering the overall program and conducts some of
the research. The agency?s leadership team, consisting of the directors of
the business units and other FHWA offices, provides periodic oversight of
the overall program. In addition to the research activities within FHWA, the
agency collaborates with other DOT agencies to conduct research and
technology activities. Other nonfederal research and technology
organizations also conduct research funded by FHWA related to highways and
bridges. These organizations include state research and technology programs,
the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, private- sector
activities, and universities.
FHWA?s processes for managing the research and technology program, and in
particular for developing research agendas and evaluating research outcomes
against intended results, do not always align with the best practices for
similar federal research and technology programs. Leading research
organizations recognize that it is challenging for research and technology
programs to set goals and evaluate results in a traditional manner.
Nevertheless, best practices used in other federal research programs or
recommended by experts include: (1) developing research agendas in
consultation with external stakeholders to identify high- value research and
(2) using a systematic approach to evaluate ongoing and completed research
through such techniques as peer review. FHWA acknowledges that its approach
for developing research agendas and involving external stakeholders in
determining the direction of the program?s research lacks a consistent,
transparent, and systematic process. Instead, most external stakeholder
involvement is ad hoc through technical committees and professional
societies. FHWA officials also told us that their research decisions were
affected by funding designations contained in authorizing legislation as
well as in reports accompanying annual appropriations acts that reflect
congressional interests. Between 44 and 48 percent of authorized surface
transportation research and technology deployment funds were designated in
fiscal years 2000 through 2002. With regard to evaluating research outcomes,
FHWA officials also told us that the agency does not have a systematic
process. Instead, the agency primarily uses a ?success story? approach to
evaluate its research outcomes. While this approach shows that the agency?s
research produces some benefits, it cannot be used as the primary method to
evaluate the outcomes of the research against intended results because these
stories represent only a fraction of the program?s completed research
projects. As a result of its relatively varied processes, it is unclear
whether the
Page 4 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
organization is selecting research projects that have the highest potential
value, or what is the extent to which these projects have achieved their
objectives. We are making recommendations to improve the agency?s agenda-
development processes and its approach to evaluation by incorporating the
use of best practices for the research and technology program. FHWA
commented on a draft of this report and generally agreed with our findings
and recommendations.
FHWA is the DOT agency responsible for federal highway programs- including
distributing billions of dollars in federal highway funds to the states- and
developing federal policy regarding the nation?s highways. The agency
provides technical assistance to improve the quality of the transportation
network, conducts transportation research, and disseminates research results
throughout the country. FHWA?s business units conduct these activities
through its research and technology program, which includes ?research?
(conducting research activities),
?development? (developing practical applications or prototypes of research
findings), and ?technology? (communicating research and development
knowledge and products to users). FHWA maintains a highway research facility
in McLean, Virginia. This facility, known as the Turner- Fairbank Highway
Research Center, has over 24 indoor and outdoor laboratories and support
facilities. Approximately 300 federal employees, on- site contract
employees, and students are currently engaged in transportation research at
the center.
According to FHWA officials, the agency?s research and technology program is
oriented to supporting the agency?s and DOT?s strategic goals for the
nation?s transportation system, including
to promote public health and safety by working toward the elimination of
transportation- related deaths and injuries;
to provide an accessible, affordable, and reliable transportation system
for all people, goods, and regions;
to support a transportation system that sustains the nation?s economic
growth;
to protect and enhance communities and the natural environment affected by
transportation; and
to ensure the security of the transportation system for the movement of
people and goods, and to support the national security strategy.
The research and technology program is generally a component of broader
agency programs directed toward the achievement of these strategic goals.
Background
Page 5 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
For example, in a recent report the Transportation Research Board?s Research
and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC) stated that most of FHWA?s
research and technology program?s projects are aimed at incremental
improvements to lower highway construction and maintenance costs, improve
highway system performance, increase highway capacity, reduce highway
fatalities and injuries, reduce adverse environmental impacts, and provide a
variety of benefits such as improved travel times and fewer hazards for
highway users. 2
Concerned about the strategic focus of surface transportation research and
technology activities, Congress required DOT to establish a strategic
planning process to identify national priorities related to research and
technology for surface transportation when it passed the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century in 1998. This process was to result in a
strategic plan that included, among other things, performance goals,
resources needed to achieve those goals, and performance indicators for the
succeeding 5 years for each area of research and technology deployment. The
plan was also to be developed with comments from external stakeholders. In
response to this requirement, FHWA contributed to the development of a
research, development, and technology strategic plan for all of DOT. DOT?s
plan identifies formal research, development, and technology strategies to
support each of DOT?s strategic goals. The plan is not focused solely on
surface transportation research but applies to all modes, including examples
of research activities undertaken by FHWA in support of the agency?s
strategic goals. Congress also required that a group established by the
National Research Council review DOT?s plan, and this has taken place for
several years. Separately, in 1998 FHWA developed a 10- year strategic plan
for the agency as a whole, stating that research is a strategy for achieving
the plan?s objectives. The Research, Development, and Technology business
unit has developed performance plans that support some of FHWA?s research
efforts.
Funding mechanisms for this program?s activities have varied in recent
years. Prior to fiscal year 1992, they were wholly funded from FHWA?s
administrative and operating funds. From fiscal years 1992 through 1997, the
program was supported by a mix of operating funds and funds made
2 Transportation Research Board, The Federal Role in Highway Research and
Technology
(Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 2001), p. 76. RTCC was convened
in 1991 by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies to
provide a continuing, independent assessment of FHWA?s research and
technology program. FHWA provides funding for the committee.
Page 6 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
available for specific types of research. For fiscal years 1998 through
2003, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century authorized funding
for the following seven research activities: surface transportation
research, technology deployment, training and education, intelligent
transportation systems, intelligent transportation systems deployment,
university transportation centers, and the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics. 3 Since 1998, FHWA has generally not used administrative funds
for research activities. A portion of the funds for the research and
technology program are designated for or directed to particular research
programs and recipients, either in the authorization or appropriations
legislation or in committee reports. Although FHWA technical staff set
priorities for the research and technology program, its activities are
carried out through a combination of federal employees, private contractors
and grantees, and university researchers. During the past decade, the use of
contract employees instead of federal employees to conduct research has
increased. Because the program?s authorizing legislation is scheduled to
expire in fiscal year 2003, to continue it Congress will have to reauthorize
the program and determine how it will be funded.
Since 1998, individual business units within FHWA have directed and carried
out the activities of FHWA?s research and technology program that fall under
the surface transportation research and technology deployment areas. (See
app. II for agency organization charts.) Under the current organization,
directors of these business units (Federal Lands Highway; Infrastructure;
Operations; Planning and Environment; Policy; Research, Development, and
Technology; and Safety) work collaboratively to provide leadership for the
program?s activities (see table 1).
3 This report focuses primarily on the Surface Transportation Research and
Technology Deployment activities. FHWA?s Surface
Transportation Research and Technology Program?s Organization Is Complex and
Decentralized
Page 7 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
Table 1: Roles of Business Units in Research and Technology Unit name Role
in research and technology Examples of current research and technology
projects
Federal Lands Highway Development of applied research and technology
applicable to transportation systems serving federal lands.
Road Surface Analyzer (ROSAN) measurement of pavement smoothness.
Infrastructure Development of research and technology in the areas of
highway construction and physical maintenance, pavements, and structures.
Long- term pavement performance. Concrete research and technology.
Innovative bridge technology.
Operations Development of research and technology program plans for the
Intelligent Transportation Systems program, as well as operation of the
transportation system and management of freight transportation.
Research into advanced traffic simulation modeling. Prediction tools and
research into advanced, adaptive traffic signal control strategies. Analysis
of critical intermodal freight corridors and facilities. Work zone best
practices guide and program support. Planning and Environment Development of
research and technology
in the areas of planning, environment, and property acquisition.
Workshops, synthesis materials, and case studies of state consultation
practices with rural officials. Statewide planning and travel forecasting
training. Research on the contribution of transportation to air pollution
and on strategies to reduce transportation effects. Highway noise barrier
design handbook. Policy Development of analytical tools and data
systems for policy development and studies; conducting analysis and studies
to support the formulation of transportation policy and legislative
initiatives; and preparation of major reports to Congress on highway policy
issues.
National personal transportation survey. Highway cost allocation study.
Production of biennial report, ?Status of the Nation?s Highways, Bridges,
and Transit: Condition and Performance.?
Safety Leading in development of research and technology activities in the
areas of Intersections; Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety; Roadside Safety;
Run- Off- Road Safety; and Speed Management.
Interactive highway safety design model for two- lane roads. Pedestrian
safety countermeasure selection system. Education and community programs for
pedestrian/ bicyclist safety. Analysis of intersection safety issues. Red-
light running prevention. Speed limit setting and enforcement. Variable
speed limits. Research, Development, and Technology Support of all other
business units in the
development and delivery of new technologies.
Research activities to support Infrastructure, Operations, and Safety
business units.
Source: GAO presentation of information provided by FHWA.
The program?s management is complex because these business units are
individually responsible, among other things, for identifying research
needs, developing strategies to address transportation problems, and
managing research and technology activities that support the agency?s
strategic goals. In some cases, the business units conduct their own
Page 8 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
research. However, the Research, Development, and Technology business unit,
located at the Turner- Fairbank Highway Research Center, conducts research
for the Infrastructure, Operations, and Safety business units. The Research,
Development, and Technology business unit also works with the other business
units to prepare materials to support the program?s overall budget, and it
serves as FHWA?s liaison to other organizations that advise FHWA on research
or conduct highway- related research. The agency?s leadership team, composed
of the business unit directors, field service directors, a division
administrator, the FHWA administrator, and the FHWA executive director,
meets periodically to advise the business units on research and technology
program priorities, budgets, and milestones.
FHWA?s leadership team advises the business units on how funds should be
distributed by considering designations in statutes and committee reports
and the stated needs of individual business units. The Office of the
Administrator approves final budgets for the business units. In fiscal year
2002, the business unit responsible for the largest percentage of surface
transportation research and technology deployment funds was the
Infrastructure business unit (see fig. 1).
Page 9 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
Figure 1: Distribution of Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Deployment Funds, Fiscal Year 2002
Note: Business units are responsible for managing these funds but may
distribute them to other business units to meet research needs. For example,
Infrastructure, Operations, and Safety business units distribute most of
their research funds to the Research, Development, and Technology business
unit to conduct particular research on their behalf. The FHWA- wide category
in this figure includes funds for research projects in which multiple
offices within FHWA have responsibility.
Source: GAO analysis of data from FHWA.
Prior to the agencywide restructuring in 1998, research activities were
managed throughout the organization, including at the Office of the
Associate Administrator for Research and Development and the Office of
Technology Applications. Decisions related to developing research and
technology projects, budgets, and acquisition plans were made by the
Research and Technology Executive Board. Chaired by the executive director,
the board?s membership included all agency associate administrators, the
director of the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, and
one regional administrator. The board met
Page 10 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
periodically to obtain information from working groups composed of
representatives from across the agency, the National Highway Institute, and
other DOT agencies. 4 FHWA has recently assessed the effects of its 1998
agencywide restructuring and has drafted 13 recommendations to address the
limitations of the new organization. Two of these recommendations
specifically address the agency?s research and technology program,
identifying the need to raise its stature in FHWA. The agency has created
and filled the position of assistant director for Research, Technology, and
Innovation Deployment as a response to this recommendation. This new
position will also be responsible for implementing recent recommendations
made by the RTCC for improving FHWA?s program.
In addition to its own research projects, FHWA collaborates with other DOT
agencies to conduct research. For example, FHWA works with DOT?s Research
and Special Programs Administration to coordinate efforts to support key
research identified in the department?s strategic plan. 5 In fiscal year
2001, FHWA and the Research and Special Programs Administration contributed
an estimated $15.2 million and $3.5 million, respectively, for these
collaborative, ?intermodal? research and technology efforts. Examples of
FHWA?s research with other transportation modes include:
an ongoing study with DOT?s National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, through the Georgia Institute of Technology, to investigate
the relationship between vehicle speed and crash risk under various
demographic, environmental, and physical conditions. Funds from FHWA were
spent to compare the speeds of drivers involved in crashes with the
prevailing speeds of other drivers at the time and location of the crashes;
and
a study at the Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting,
with the collaboration of several other agencies, including DOT?s Maritime
4 The National Highway Institute is a part of the Professional Development
business unit. It provides professional training to federal, state, and
local highway officials. 5 As required by Congress, DOT annually develops
the departmentwide ?Research,
Development, and Technology Plan.? This plan, drafted by the Research and
Special Programs Administration and funded in part by FHWA, provides
program- level detail on the directions that DOT?s research will take. This
plan is used by the individual operating administrations, such as FHWA and
the Research and Special Programs Administration, as a resource document to
develop their subsequent program proposals for inclusion in their
administration budgets. FHWA Collaborates with
Other DOT Offices for Research Efforts
Page 11 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. This study examined the potential effects on
transportation infrastructure of such climate change phenomena as rising sea
levels, increasing frequency of severe weather events, and changing
precipitation levels.
Several other entities and organizations, detailed below, conduct surface
transportation research that can be related to FHWA?s research and
technology program. FHWA officials told us that the agency has both formal
and informal means for coordination with some of these other organizations.
Each of the 50 states, Washington, D. C., and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico have an independent highway research program. In general, state
programs address technical questions associated with the planning, design,
construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of highways. State highway
research projects usually reflect local concerns. According to an official
at the Transportation Research Board, 47 states indicated that they spent
approximately $322 million in 1999 on such research. 6 State research
programs are generally funded through federal funds set aside from the
federal highway aid apportioned to the states. FHWA division administrators
in each state approve the state?s annual or biennial research program,
funded by a subset of federal funds. The national association that
represents state departments of transportation, the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, also plays a key role in highway
research. This association has a standing committee on research that
develops voluntary standards and guidelines.
The National Cooperative Highway Research Program conducts research on
acute problems related to highway planning, design, construction, operation,
and maintenance that are common to most states. Typically, its research
projects are problem- oriented and designed to produce results that have an
immediate application. As voluntary program members, state departments of
transportation approve research projects and agree to provide financial
support. Each member state provides an amount equal to 5.5 percent of its
state planning and research funds. Program funding for fiscal year 2001 was
$30.6 million. FHWA formally coordinates with members of this program and
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to
review proposed projects. FHWA also
6 These are the most recent available data. Other Organizations Have
a Significant Role in Research and Technology Efforts
Page 12 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
participates in selecting projects that complement the agency?s defined
program, reducing duplication and leveraging limited funding.
The private sector conducts or sponsors individual programs. Private
organizations include companies that design and construct highways and
supply highway- related products, national associations of industry
components, and engineering associations active in construction and highway
transportation. Funding information for private- sector highway research is
generally proprietary in nature, although an official of the Transportation
Research Board estimated that the total funding for this research ranged
from $75 million to $150 million annually.
Universities receive funding for research on surface transportation from
FHWA, the states, and the private sector. For example, since 1988 DOT has
awarded grants under its University Transportation Center program to
universities throughout the nation to support education, research, and
technology deployment. 7 Each grantee is called a University Transportation
Center, whether working alone or as the lead of a consortium of
universities. Some have formed centers for research, education, and training
in specialty areas related to highway transportation. Thirty- three centers
currently exist; they were either selected competitively or specified in
legislation. The Office of Innovation, Research, and Education within the
department?s Research and Special Programs Administration manages the
program; funding provided for the 33 centers in fiscal year 2001 from FHWA?s
research and technology program amounted to $23. 9 million.
Leading organizations that conduct scientific and engineering research,
other federal agencies with research programs, and experts in research and
technology have identified and use best practices for developing research
agendas and evaluating research outcomes. Although the uncertain nature of
research outcomes over time makes it difficult to set specific, measurable
program goals and evaluate results, the best practices we identified are
designed to ensure that the research objectives are related to the areas of
greatest interest and concern to research users and that research is
evaluated according to these objectives. These practices include:
7 The University Transportation Centers were created to advance U. S.
technology and expertise in many disciplines related to transportation
through education, research, and technology transfer programs at university-
level centers. FHWA Processes for
Developing Research Agendas and Evaluating Research Outcomes Do Not Always
Follow Best Practices for Federal Research Programs
Page 13 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
Developing research agendas through the involvement of external
stakeholders: External stakeholder involvement and merit review are
particularly important for FHWA because its research is expected to improve
the construction, safety, and operation of transportation systems that are
primarily managed by others, such as state departments of transportation.
According to RTCC, research has to be closely connected to its stakeholders
to help ensure relevance and program support, and stakeholders are more
likely to promote the use of research results if they are involved in the
research process from the start. 8 The committee also identified merit
review of research proposals based on technical criteria by independent
technical experts as being necessary to help ensure the most effective use
of federal research funds. In 1999, we reported that other federal science
agencies- such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National
Science Foundation- used such reviews to varying degrees to assess the
merits of competitive and noncompetitive research proposals. 9
Evaluation of research using expert review of the quality of research
outcomes or other best practices: A form of expert review called peer review
is a process that includes an independent assessment of the technical and
scientific merit or quality of research by peers with essential subject area
expertise and perspective equal to that of the researchers. Peer review does
not require that the final impact of the research be known. In 1999, we
reported that federal agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture, the
National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Energy, use peer review
to help them (1) determine whether to continue or renew research projects,
(2) evaluate the results of research prior to publication of those results,
and (3) evaluate the performance of programs and scientists. 10 In its 1999
report, the Committee on Science, Engineering,
8 Transportation Research Board, The Federal Role in Highway Research and
Technology
(Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 2001), p. 76. For surface
transportation research, potential stakeholders include state and local
highway agencies that own and operate the nation?s highways; highway users;
the companies that furnish the products, services, and equipment needed to
build, operate, and maintain the highway system; and the people and
communities that benefit from and are affected by the system.
9 Federal Research: Peer Review Practices at Federal Science Agencies Vary
(GAO/ RCED- 99- 99, Mar. 1999), p. 2. 10 GAO/ RCED- 99- 99.
Page 14 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
and Public Policy 11 also stated that expert review is widely used to
evaluate three aspects of the Government Performance and Results Act: 12 (1)
the quality of current research as compared with other work being conducted
in the field, (2) the relevance of research to the agency?s goals and
mission, and (3) whether the research is at the ?cutting edge.?
Although FHWA engages external stakeholders in elements of its research and
technology program, the agency currently does not follow the best practice
of engaging external stakeholders on a sustained basis. The agency expects
each business unit to determine how or whether to involve external
stakeholders in the research process. As a result, this approach is used
inconsistently. Prior to its 1998 restructuring, FHWA worked with some
external stakeholders to initiate ?roadmapping? activities for each of its
key research areas that would have resulted in research agendas for these
areas. 13 To prepare individual roadmaps, the agency?s working groups
collaborated across agency office boundaries and with members of the RTCC.
However, before the roadmapping had been completed for all research areas,
FHWA changed its approach to managing research because of the agency?s
reorganization, and RTCC?s involvement with roadmapping ceased.
FHWA acknowledges that its approach to preparing research agendas is
inconsistent and that the directors of FHWA?s business units primarily use
input from the agency?s business units, resource centers, and division
offices. Although agency officials told us that resource center and division
office staff provide the business unit directors with input based on their
interactions with external stakeholders, external stakeholder input into
11 Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Evaluating Federal
Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act
(Washington, D. C.: Feb. 1999), p. 39. The Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy is a joint committee of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine.
12 The 1993 Government Performance and Results Act requires federal agencies
to set strategic goals and establish performance measures for management. 13
The Transportation Research Board?s RTCC has recognized roadmapping as an
important tool for research and technology priority setting and programming.
Roadmapping is a
?reverse engineering? process in which specific, desired research and
technology outcomes are identified and the means to accomplish these
outcomes are determined. This
?backward planning? process was designed to enable FHWA to define how funds
are used and to better understand its research and technology priorities and
responsibilities. External Stakeholders?
Involvement in Developing the Program?s Research Agendas Has Been Limited
Page 15 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
developing research agendas is usually ad hoc, provided through technical
committees and professional societies. For example, the agency?s agenda for
environmental research was developed with input from both internal sources
(including DOT?s and FHWA?s strategic plans and staff) and external sources
(including the Transportation Research Board?s reports on environmental
research needs and clean air, environmental justice leaders, planners, civil
rights advocates, and legal experts). Similarly, the agency uses external
stakeholders to provide merit review of research projects on an ad hoc
basis. For example, to prepare its ?Conditions and Performance Report?, the
Policy business unit used a peer review group to provide input into the
Highway Economic Requirements System (an economic model that uses marginal
cost- benefit analysis to optimize highway investment).
FHWA acknowledges that the agency lacks a consistent, transparent, and
systematic approach for engaging stakeholders in setting research agendas.
However, FHWA has recently taken several steps to increase the involvement
of external stakeholders in developing research agendas. First, FHWA?s work
with RTCC has resulted in the agency?s obtaining occasional external
guidance for its overall program since 1991. The committee points out,
however, that it cannot provide broad- based input from stakeholders on the
full range of potential highway research topics or specific projects on a
continuing basis because its membership is not representative of all the
disciplines included in FHWA?s research and technology program. 14 In its
2001 report, the committee recommended that decisions about FHWA research
topics should balance stakeholders? concerns against experts? external
reviews and recommendations as to which research areas hold promise for
significant breakthroughs. According to the draft response to the
recommendation, FHWA plans to develop such a process by June 30, 2002. In
addition, in 1998, FHWA helped organize a National Highway Research and
Technology Partnership Forum to identify national highway research and
technology needs using input from external stakeholders. 15 Although the
forum identified research
14 Transportation Research Board, The Federal Role in Highway Research and
Technology
(Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 2001), p. 83. 15 The National
Highway Research and Technology Partnership Forum was initiated in 1998 by
FHWA, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, and the Transportation Research Board. Its purpose is to better
coordinate investments among highway research and technology programs in a
manner that involves the diverse array of highway transportation
stakeholders. The forum has no official standing and relies entirely on
volunteer participation. Hundreds of individuals and more than 160
organizations have participated in this initiative.
Page 16 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
needs and priorities for FHWA?s consideration in its draft report of August
2001, its long- term role remains to be seen.
FHWA officials told us that their ability to develop their research agendas
using best practices is also affected by funding designations contained in
statutes and committee reports. These designations take a variety of forms,
including requiring FHWA to initiate or maintain specific research efforts
and specifying dollar amounts for particular recipients. According to agency
officials, the designations made by the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century and conference reports accompanying recent appropriations acts
have represented significant proportions of the agency?s research budget.
Using agency data, we calculated that 44 percent of authorized surface
transportation research and technology deployment funds in fiscal year 2000,
48 percent in fiscal year 2001, and 44 percent in fiscal year 2002 were
designated (see app. I, tables 4, 5, and 6). 16 Agency officials
acknowledged that these funding designations reflect congressional interests
and priorities but also stated that without these designations, FHWA would
have an enhanced opportunity to consistently plan its research agendas and
select researchers for its projects according to accepted best practices.
In 1999, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy reported
that federal agencies that support research in science and engineering have
been challenged to find the most useful and effective ways to evaluate the
performance and results of the research programs they support. However, the
committee found that research programs, no matter what their character and
goals, can be evaluated meaningfully on a regular basis and in accordance
with the Government Performance and Results Act. The committee emphasized
that the evaluation methods must match the type of research and its
objectives, and it concluded that expert or peer review is a particularly
effective means to evaluate federally funded research. The peer review
process includes an independent assessment of the technical and scientific
merits of research by those with knowledge and expertise equal to that of
the researchers whose work they review.
16 If calculated based upon available funds subject to obligation
limitations, the percentages would be significantly higher. FHWA Lacks a
Systematic
Process to Evaluate Research Outcomes
Page 17 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
According to FHWA officials, the agency does not have an agencywide
systematic process to evaluate whether its research projects are achieving
intended results and does not generally use a peer review approach. Although
the agency?s business units may use such various methods as obtaining
feedback from customers and evaluating outputs or outcomes versus
milestones, they all use success stories as the primary method to evaluate
research outcomes. According to agency officials, success stories are
examples of research results adopted or implemented by such stakeholders as
state departments of transportation. Although agency officials told us that
peer reviews are useful to assess research quality, relevance, and technical
breakthroughs, success stories can document the financial returns on
investment and nonmonetary benefits of research and technology efforts. FHWA
officials provided us with the following examples of success stories:
Research conducted by the Infrastructure business unit produced a
specification guide on how to mitigate earthquake damage to structures. The
guide was adopted by the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials for inclusion in its guidance to state departments
of transportation.
The operations research and technology group developed the 511 traveler
telephone number that replaced 300 different traveler information telephone
numbers nationwide. This single, three- digit number is currently being used
in the states of Utah and Nebraska and in parts of Virginia, Kentucky, and
Ohio to provide motorists with timely local travel information to help
relieve traffic congestion.
To respond to one of FHWA?s priority safety emphases, the safety research
and technology group developed rumble strips to warn drivers who are driving
their vehicles off the road. 17 According to agency officials, in the eight
states surveyed that have used rumble strips, crash reduction has ranged
from 18 to 72 percent, and the cost- benefit ratio has ranged from 30: 1 to
as high as 60: 1.
Research on long- term pavement performance is significantly improving the
pavement- engineering process nationwide. Engineers are using a software
tool known as a long- term pavement performance bind to more accurately
determine the asphalt binder grade needed for specific environmental
conditions. This software tool has helped highway agencies
17 Rumble strips are milled or rolled- in grooves on a road?s shoulder that
create a noise and slight vibration felt by the driver when a vehicle leaves
the roadway.
Page 18 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
to save at least $50 million each year by reducing the application of
unnecessary substances that increase the costs of highway construction.
In 2001, RTCC also concluded that peer or expert review is an appropriate
way to evaluate FHWA?s surface transportation research and technology
program. 18 Therefore, the committee recommended a variety of actions,
including a systematic evaluation of outcomes by panels of external
stakeholders and technical experts to help ensure the maximum return on
investment in research. Agency officials told us that increased stakeholder
involvement and peer review will require significant additional expenditures
for the program. However, a Transportation Research Board official told us
that the cost of obtaining expert assistance could be relatively low because
the time needed to provide input would be minimal and could be provided by
such inexpensive methods as electronic mail. As a partial response to RTCC?s
recommendation, FHWA has established a laboratory assessment process that
will be used to conduct regular reviews of the Turner- Fairbank Highway
Research Center. These reviews will be conducted by panels of external
technical experts and will include such issues as technical excellence and
quality of lab activities. FHWA?s draft response to this recommendation
indicates that it plans to initiate an evaluation process by June 30, 2002.
With millions of dollars for its research, FHWA?s research and technology
program has the potential to significantly improve the nation?s highway
system. FHWA has described several success stories to us but, because its
decisions about selecting research and identifying priorities are uneven in
the extent to which they use best practices such as seeking external input,
it is unclear whether the agency is selecting the most important and
relevant research. In addition, because FHWA does not systematically
evaluate its research and technology program, it is unclear whether the
research is having the intended results or whether some refocusing of the
research would be justified. Therefore, we agree with several of the recent
recommendations from the Transportation Research Board?s Research and
Technology Coordinating Committee, which were designed to remedy these
limitations of FHWA?s program. In its draft response to these
recommendations, FHWA has indicated that it will take action on most of
them. The cost of making such improvements in FHWA?s research and
18 Transportation Research Board, The Federal Role in Highway Research and
Technology,
p. 88. Conclusions
Page 19 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
technology program is unknown and will influence the extent to which FHWA
can adopt certain best practices. Because Congress has been concerned about
the strategic focus of FHWA?s research and technology program and will soon
have to make decisions about the nature of the program and the level of
resources to devote to it, information generated by FHWA?s potentially
improved processes for developing research agendas and evaluating research
outcomes, as well as information about the cost of such changes, will also
be useful to Congress.
To help ensure that FHWA?s research agenda and approach to evaluation are
identifying research with the highest value to the surface transportation
community and monitoring the outcomes of that research, we are recommending
that the secretary of transportation direct the FHWA administrator to
develop a systematic approach for obtaining input from external
stakeholders in determining the research and technology program?s agendas;
develop a systematic process for evaluating significant ongoing and
completed research that incorporates peer review or other best practices in
use at federal agencies that conduct research; and
develop specific plans for implementing these recommendations, including
time frames and estimates of their cost.
We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from FHWA officials,
including the director of Research, Development, and Technology and the
director of the Office of Program Development and Evaluation. These
officials indicated that they were pleased that the draft report had
recognized some of the FHWA research and technology program?s
accomplishments to date, along with its potential to significantly improve
the nation?s highway system. They also indicated general agreement with the
draft report?s overall assessment of the program and the draft report?s
recommendations.
The FHWA officials told us that they have been working with both internal
and external groups to assess the processes used to plan the research and
technology program and to evaluate its results. These officials maintain
that the program is essentially sound and pursues worthy research in an
effective manner with key program stakeholders. Nonetheless, the agency
officials agreed that improvements are possible in the methods used to
select research and technology projects and to evaluate program results.
Recommendations for
Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
Page 20 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
They told us that FHWA had recently taken steps to make research a higher
priority for the agency by investing in research to meet stakeholders?
needs, improving delivery of innovations to potential users, and improving
business processes in the research and technology program. As a result of a
major restructuring assessment, FHWA officials told us that the agency has
also committed to making research and technology more prominent as a
strategy for achieving FHWA?s mission. With regard to project planning and
selection, FHWA officials explained that they are examining ways to improve
existing methods for incorporating stakeholder input and seeking means to
further ensure that stakeholder perspectives are fully and effectively
considered. Finally, with regard to evaluating program results, FHWA
officials told us that although there are merits to current methods, more
extensive and consistent use of best practices such as peer review could
benefit the program.
We acknowledge that FHWA recently has planned or put into place several
initiatives designed to improve its research and technology program, and we
describe these actions in this report. Nevertheless, we continue to believe
that additional actions in response to our recommendations are warranted to
improve FHWA?s processes for setting research agendas and evaluating
research efforts.
We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees and
subcommittees with responsibilities for transportation, the secretary of
transportation, the Federal Highway Administration administrator, and the
director of the Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies
available to others upon request.
Page 21 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at
(202) 512- 2834. Key contributors to this report were Sharon Dyer, Sally
Gilley, Octavia Parks, Deena Richart, and Kate Siggerud.
JayEtta Z. Hecker Director, Physical Infrastructure Team
Appendix I: Funding Information for FHWA?s Research and Technology Program
Page 22 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
In fiscal year 1992 (the first year in which FHWA?s research and technology
program was authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991), authorized funding for the entire program increased
almost fivefold, from approximately $88.6 million in fiscal year 1991 to
$442.4 million. 19 Since that time, authorized funding for FHWA?s research
and technology program has remained relatively flat; from fiscal year 1992
through fiscal year 2001, authorized funding for the program went from $442.
4 million to $437.3 million. However, since fiscal year 1998 these
authorized funds have been subject to an obligation limitation that has
reduced amounts available for research purposes an average of about 11
percent a year below authorized funding levels (see fig. 2). 20
19 The dollar amounts in this section, unless otherwise noted, are adjusted
to 2001 dollars. 20 A limitation on obligations acts as a ceiling on the
obligations of authorized funds that can be made within a specified time
period, usually a fiscal year. Congress relies on limitations on obligations
to control program spending and to make it more responsive to prevailing
budget and economic policy. Limitations on obligations are included in the
annual appropriations act for DOT. Appendix I: Funding Information for
FHWA?s
Research and Technology Program
Appendix I: Funding Information for FHWA?s Research and Technology Program
Page 23 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
Figure 2: Federal Highway Administration?s Funding for Research and
Technology Program, Fiscal Years 1992- 2001
Notes: Research funds were not subject to a specific obligation limitation
from fiscal years 1992 through 1997. Funds were then subjected to the
following obligation limitations: 89.1 percent in fiscal year 1998; 88.3
percent in fiscal year 1999; 87.1 percent in fiscal year 2000; and 87.9
percent in fiscal year 2001. Fiscal year 2001 funds were also reduced by a
0. 22 percent rescission required by P. L. 106- 554. Dollar amounts are
adjusted to 2001 dollars.
This figure includes all categories of funding under research and technology
provided to FHWA. Source: GAO presentation of data from FHWA.
The areas of research funded from fiscal years 1992 through 2001 have varied
based on authorizing legislation. From fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year
1997, the majority of FHWA?s entire surface transportation research and
technology funding went to support the Intelligent Vehicle
Appendix I: Funding Information for FHWA?s Research and Technology Program
Page 24 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
Highway Systems program. 21 The remainder of funds primarily supported the
agency?s highway research, development, and technology program and applied
research and technology program. Since fiscal year 1998, the majority of the
agency?s research and technology program funds have continued to support the
intelligent transportation systems program as well as the surface
transportation research program. (See tables 2 and 3 for funding allocations
by program area for fiscal years 1992 through 2001.)
Table 2: Research and Technology Program Allocations by Program Area, Fiscal
Years 1992- 1997
(Dollars in thousands)
Program area 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Highway research development and
technology
Safety $6,492 $8,862 $5,738 $7,768 $8,335 $8,650 Materials 3, 375 5,923
3,685 5,451 0 0 Pavements 4, 186 7,278 7,259 7,476 8,791 9,731 Structure 4,
187 6,203 4,860 6,311 12,558 14,362 Environment 2,654 4,873 4,080 5,593
5,317 5,443 Right- of- way 487 487 320 429 408 322 Policy 6, 072 7,797 6,689
6,681 5,401 5,328 Planning 1, 047 2,437 4,369 6,069 5,769 5,889 Motor
Carrier 0 4, 183 5,345 7,774 7,390 7,399 Long Term Pavement Performance 0 0
0 0 0 10,000
Subtotal $28,500 $48,043 $42,525 $53,552 $53,969 $67,124 Intelligent Vehicle
Highway Systems
Research and development $0 $17,500 $28,000 $35,000 $49,916 $28,605 IVHS
operational tests 0 0 15,000 22,500 31,052 54,992 Commercial vehicle
operations 1,550 0 10,000 10,700 0 0 Automated highway system 0 0 10,000
10,000 0 0 Advance technology applications 0 0 15,000 15,000 0 0 IVHS
program & system support 5, 750 12,500 12,300 11,300 10,034 7, 761
Institutional issues program 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 Deployment program 2,700 0 0 0
0 0 Advanced traffic management system and advanced traveler information
system 16,025 0 0 0 0 0
21 The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 established
the Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems Program- later renamed the
Intelligent Transportation Systems Program- prescribing the ?widespread
implementation of intelligent transportation systems to enhance the
capacity, efficiency, and safety of the federal- aid highway system and to
serve as an alternative to additional physical capacity of the federal- aid
highway system.?
Appendix I: Funding Information for FHWA?s Research and Technology Program
Page 25 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
(Dollars in thousands)
Program area 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Advanced vehicle control system 2,275 0 0 0 0 0 Priority corridors 0 0 0
10,000 0 0 AHS/ Advanced crash avoidance 0 0 0 0 14,000 22,000 Evaluations 0
0 0 0 0 2, 000 Architecture and standards 0 0 0 0 0 5, 000 Other IVHS
activities 110,000 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $139,800 $30,000 $90,300 $114,500 $105,002 $120,358
Long- term pavement performance $10,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,739 $8,308 $0
Technology assessment & deployment 8,000 8,000 12,000 12,622 12,499 13,811
Local rural technology assistance 3,750 4,000 500 3,015 2,866 2,827 National
Highway Institute 3, 000 4,500 4,500 4,369 4,327 4,269 Multimodal studies
4,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 Minority/ disadvantaged business enterprise 8,000 8,000
10,000 10,000 9, 506 9,378 Highway inventory and user cost 0 750 0 0 0 0
Highway use tax evasion project 1, 000 0 0 0 0 0 International
transportation 100 250 400 500 475 475 Feasibility, design, environmental
studies 650 0 0 0 0 0 On- the- job training, skill training 0 0 0 5, 000 0 0
Russia technical assistance 0 0 0 400 380 200 Truck dynamic test facility 0
0 0 0 713 0 Cost allocation study 0 0 0 0 1, 901 300 Transportation
investment analysis 0 0 0 0 0 250 Federal lands contamination site cleanup 0
0 0 0 0 2, 466 Rehabilitation of Turner- Fairbank 0 1,940 1,250 3,000 0 500
Subtotal all programs $206,800 $114,483 $168,475 $215,697 $199,946 $221,958
Direct contract authority programs a
Intelligent transportation systems $94,000 $113,000 $113,000 $113,000
$97,910 $113,000 Local technical assistance program 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
6,000 6,000 University transportation centers 5, 000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
6,000 University research institute 6, 250 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250
Strategic highway research program implementation 12,000 16,000 20,000
20,000 20,000 20,000 Eisenhower transportation fellowship program 2, 000
2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Applied research and technology 35,000 41,000
41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 Seismic research and development program 2, 000
2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Fundamental properties of asphalts 3, 000
3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 N/ A
Subtotal direct contract authority $165,250 $195,250 $199,250 $199,250
$184,160 $196,250 Total $372,050 $309,733 $367,725 $414,947 $384,106
$418,208
a Funding consisted of direct contract authority provided in authorizing
legislation. All other funding in this table was provided from amounts
available for FHWA?s general operating expenses. Funds were obligated at 100
percent.
Note: All dollar amounts in this table represent nominal dollars and have
not been adjusted for inflation.
Source: GAO presentation of data from FHWA.
Appendix I: Funding Information for FHWA?s Research and Technology Program
Page 26 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
Table 3: Research and Technology Program Allocations by Program Area, Fiscal
Years 1998- 2001
(Dollars in thousands)
Program area 1998 1999 2000 2001 Surface transportation research
Safety $6,861 $11,068 $12,368 $13,156 Pavements 9, 243 11,611 11,367 13,156
Structure 8, 447 14,216 13,065 13,156 Environment 2,971 4,680 5,400 5,438
Policy 4, 123 4,768 3,484 4,034 Planning and real estate services 5,856
3,854 3,484 3,596 Motor carrier 5, 572 5,651 5,574 0 Technical assessment
and deployment 10,163 12,362 12,194 12,279 Research & technology technical
support 8, 711 6,623 6,533 6,578 Long- term pavement performance 10,000 8,
830 8,710 8,771 Advanced research 0 883 784 789 International outreach 889
442 436 438 National advanced driver simulator 11,806 0 0 0 Highway
operations/ asset management 894 0 0 4,561 Highway operations 0 662 653 0
Freight research and development 0 0 436 0 Revenue- aligned budget authority
0 0 0 0
Subtotal $85,536 $65,650 $84,488 $85,952 Technology deployment program
Tech. deployment program $31,182 $30,905 $34,840 $39,468 Revenue aligned
budget authority 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $31,182 $30,905 $34,840 $39,468 Intelligent transportation systems
Research and development $40,429 $33,554 $41,329 $40,784 Operational tests
6, 580 15,011 5, 792 10,367 Evaluation/ program assessment 6, 000 5,740
6,097 6,797 Architecture and standards 10,662 15,894 14,284 12,060
Integration 10,837 5, 298 10,191 9, 718 Program support 8, 654 8,389 7,839
7,981 Deployment incentives 1,483 0 0 0 ITS deployment 89,991 92,715 98,423
103,494 Revenue- aligned budget authority- ITS research 0 0 0 0 Revenue-
aligned budget authority- ITS deployment 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $174,636 $176,601 $183,955 $191,201 Training and education
Local rural technology assistance $6,237 $6,181 $6,968 $7,894 National
Highway Institute 4, 455 5,298 5,226 6,139 Eisenhower fellowship program
1,782 1,766 1,742 1,754 Revenue- aligned budget authority 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $12,474 $13,245 $13,936 $15,787
Appendix I: Funding Information for FHWA?s Research and Technology Program
Page 27 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
(Dollars in thousands)
Program area 1998 1999 2000 2001 Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Bureau of Transportation Statistics $31,000 $31,000 $31,000 $30,932 Revenue-
aligned budget authority 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $31,000 $31,000 $31,000 $30,932 University transportation centers
University transportation centers $22,854 $22,649 $23,735 $23,900 Revenue-
aligned budget authority 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $22,854 $22,649 $23,735 $23,900 Total $357,685 $360,050 $371,954
$387,240
Notes: Funds were subjected to the following obligation limitations: 89.1
percent in fiscal year 1998; 88.3 percent in fiscal year 1999; 87. 1 percent
in fiscal year 2000; and 87. 9 percent in fiscal year 2001. Fiscal year 2001
funds were also reduced by a 0.22 percent rescission required by P. L. 106-
554.
All dollar amounts in this table represent nominal dollars and have not been
adjusted for inflation. Source: GAO presentation of data from FHWA.
These funds were subject to designations in statutes and committee reports,
with the Infrastructure business unit being the most affected (see tables 4,
5, and 6 for designations by business unit for fiscal years 2000 through
2002). In fiscal year 2002, approximately 80 percent of the surface
transportation research and technology deployment funds provided to the
Infrastructure business unit were designated.
Appendix I: Funding Information for FHWA?s Research and Technology Program
Page 28 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
Table 4: Surface Transportation Research and Technology Deployment Funds,
Designations in Statutes and Committee Reports, Fiscal Year 2000
(Dollars in thousands)
Business unit Surface
Transportation Research funds
designated in authorizing
legislation a Technology
Deployment funds designated in
authorizing legislation a
Technology Deployment
funds designated in appropriations act conference
report Surface
Transportation Research funds
designated in appropriations act conference
report Total designations
Designations as percentage of available Surface
Transportation Research and
Technology Deployment funds
Infrastructure $20,251 $17,420 $500 $4,425 $42,596 81.3% Planning and
Environment 975 5,575 0 2, 475 9,025 59.5 Operations 0 2, 932 1,000 0 3,932
42.2 Safety 0 4, 050 0 50 4,100 26.6 Agencywide 436 0 0 0 436 3.0
a Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Notes: Obligation
limitation of 87. 1 percent applied to amounts designated in authorizing
legislation; designations of ?up to? amounts in reports funded at 50
percent.
All dollar amounts in this table represent nominal dollars and have not been
adjusted for inflation. Source: GAO presentation of data from FHWA.
Table 5: Surface Transportation Research and Technology Deployment Funds,
Designations in Statutes and Committee Reports, Fiscal Year 2001
(Dollars in thousands)
Business unit Surface
Transportation Research funds
designated in authorizing
legislation a Technology
Deployment funds designated in
authorizing legislation a
Surface Transportation Research funds
designated in appropriations act conference
report Technology
Deployment funds designated in appropriations act conference
report Total Designations as
percentage of available Surface
Transportation Research and
Technology Deployment funds
Infrastructure $19,778 $19,778 $10,100 $0 $49,656 85.1% Planning and
Environment 176 5,626 1,500 0 7,302 42.7 Operations 0 2, 959 720 800 4,479
44.4 Safety 0 3, 472 2,720 0 6,192 34.5 Agencywide 440 0 0 0 440 3.2
a Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Notes: Obligation
limitation of 87. 9 percent applied to amounts designated in authorizing
legislation; designations of ?up to? amounts in reports funded at 40
percent.
All dollar amounts in this table represent nominal dollars and have not been
adjusted for inflation. Source: GAO presentation of data from FHWA.
Appendix I: Funding Information for FHWA?s Research and Technology Program
Page 29 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
Table 6: Surface Transportation Research and Technology Deployment Funds,
Designations in Statutes and Committee Reports, Fiscal Year 2002
(Dollars in thousands)
Business unit Surface
Transportation Research funds
designated in authorizing
legislation a Technology
Deployment funds designated in
authorizing legislation a Appropriations act
conference action Total Designations as
percentage of available Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Deployment funds
Infrastructure $20,340 $19,436 $5,108 $44,884 80.4% Planning and Environment
181 5,786 2,034 8,001 39.7 Operations 0 3, 044 904 3,948 31.0 Safety 0 3,
571 1,175 4,746 27.5 Policy 0 0 1, 808 1,808 24.0 Agencywide 452 0 542 994
6.3
a Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Notes: Obligation
limitation of 90. 4 percent applied to all designations. All dollar amounts
in this table represent nominal dollars and have not been adjusted for
inflation. Source: GAO presentation of data from FHWA.
Appendix II: Federal Highway Administration Organization Charts
Page 30 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
Figure 3: FHWA?s Organization Chart before 1998 Restructuring
Source: GAO presentation of information from FHWA.
Appendix II: Federal Highway Administration Organization Charts
Appendix II: Federal Highway Administration Organization Charts
Page 31 GAO- 02- 573 FHWA's Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Program
Figure 4: FHWA?s Organization Chart after 1998 Restructuring
Source: GAO presentation of information from FHWA.
(544007)
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to
support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help
improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO?s commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through the Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and
fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of
older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and
select ?Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products? under
the GAO Reports heading.
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061
Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@
gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***