transportation research boardonlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/scor_working...agenda . aashto...

SCOR Committee Meeting December 5-6, 2016

Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center 100 Academy Drive

Irvine, CA Huntington Room

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Research (SCOR)

Working Papers

Agenda

AASHTO Standing Committee on Research Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center

100 Academy Way

Irvine, California 92617

December 5-6, 2016

Dress: Business Casual Monday, December 5, 2016

Time Item Subject Page Speaker Type

7:45 a.m. Buses depart from hotel

8:00 a.m. Breakfast at the Beckman Center

9:00 a.m. 1 Welcome and Opening Remarks Chair

9:10 a.m. 2 Self-Introductions All

9:20 a.m. 3 Summary of agenda and actions required

Hedges Action

9:30 a.m. 4 Approval of Previous Meeting Notes

10 Chair Action

9:40 a.m. 5 AASHTO Comprehensive Committee Review

25 King Gee Information

10:20 a.m. 6 Discussion of NCHRP AASHTO Committee Support Projects

27 Bob Sack Action

11:30 a.m. 7 NCHRP 03-126 Operational Standards for Highway Infrastructure

32 Ray Derr Action

12:00 noon Lunch

1:00 p.m. 8 NCHRP 20-106 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation's Future

35 Steve Godwin Action

1:30 p.m. 9 In-Service Performance of Energy-absorbing W-beam Guardrail End Treatments: Phase 1

44 Steve Godwin Information

1


1:45 p.m. 10 NCHRP Project 20-102 – Impacts of Connected and Automated Vehicles on State and Local Transportation

53 Ray Derr Information

2:00 p.m. 11 TRB Partners in Research Symposium: Transformational Technologies in Transportation

58 Neil Pedersen Information

2:30 p.m. 12 Research Roadmap: Transformational Technologies other than CV/AV

66 Ray Derr Information

2:45 p.m. 13 NCHRP Implementation Plan 68 Waseem Dekelbab

Information

3:00 p.m. 14 NCHRP Process Review Chris Hedges Information

3:15 p.m 15 Research Roadmaps (Public Health and Freight)

89 Lori Sundstrom

Information

4:00 p.m. 16 Long Term Bridge/Pavement Performance projects

Michael Trentacoste

Information

4:30 p.m. Adjourn for the day

5:00 p.m. Reception

6:00 p.m. Dinner

Tuesday, December 6, 2016


7:45 a.m. Buses depart from hotel

8:00 a.m. Breakfast

9:00 a.m. Reconvene Chair

9:05 a.m. 17 Ahead of the Curve 97 David Jared Information

9:15 a.m. 18 RAC Report 98 Dale Peabody Information

2

http://www.trb.org/Calendar/Blurbs/174253.aspx



19 Organizational Reports

9:45 a.m. a AASHTO King Gee Information

10:00 a.m. b FHWA Michael Trentacoste

Information

10:15 a.m. c OST/R Kevin Womack

Information

10:30 a.m. d TRB 104 Neil Pedersen Information

11:00 a.m. e TRB Cooperative Research Programs

111 Chris Hedges Information

11:15 a.m. f Other

11:30 a.m. 20 Parking Lot Chair Action

11:45 a.m. 21 Future Activities Chris Hedges Information

12:00 noon Adjournment Chair

3

AASHTO Standing Committeee on Research

POSITION VACANTAffiliate Members

POSITION VACANT

POSITION VACANT (SCOR)Chair

Maine DOTTransportation Research Engineer

Bureau of Planning, Research, and Community Services16 State House Station

Dale H. Peabody, P.E.

Augusta, ME 04333-0016 Phone: 207/624-3305 Fax: 207/624-3301Email: [email protected]

Vice Chair

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Executive Director

444 North Capitol Street, NWSuite 249

Frederick G. "Bud" Wright

Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202/624-5810 Fax: 202/624-5806Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

AASHTO Director

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Program Director for Engineering

444 North Capitol StreetSuite 249

James T. McDonnell, P.E.

Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202/624-5448 Fax: 202/624-5469Email: [email protected]

AASHTO Staff

Transportation Research BoardDirector, Cooperative Research Programs

500 Fifth Street NW, 4th Floor

Christopher J. Hedges

Washington, DC 20001-2721 Phone: 202/334-1472 Fax: 202/334-2006Email: [email protected]

Secretary

Alt Phone: 703-407-3058 (cell)

21 November 2016 2:04 PM

4

Region 1

New Jersey DOTManager, Bureau of Research

1035 Parkway Avenue, 2nd Floor Main Office Bldg.PO Box 600

Camille Crichton-Sumners

Trenton, NJ 08625 Phone: 609/530-2419Email: [email protected] Zip: 08618 alt phone: 609/530-5966

Rhode Island DOTChief Civil Engineer

Environmental Resources & Highway EngineeringTwo Capitol Hill

Peter A. Healey, P.E.

Providence, RI 02903 Phone: 401/222-2023Email: [email protected]

New York State DOTDeputy Chief Engineer

5th Floor, 50 Wolf Road

Robert L. Sack, P.E.

Albany, NY 12232 Phone: 518/457-4445 Fax: 518/485-7074Email: [email protected] - Office

Maryland State Highway AdministrationDirector, Office of Policy and Research

707 North Calvert StreetMS C-412

Richard Y. Woo, P.E.

Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 410/545-0340 Fax: 410/209-5015Email: [email protected]

Region 2

Florida DOTManager, Research Center

605 Suwanee St. MS-30

J. Darryll Dockstader

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Phone: 850/414-4617Email: [email protected]

Tennessee DOTDirector, Long Range Planning Division

James K. Polk Building505 Deaderick Street, Suite 900

Tanisha Johnson Hall, AICP

Nashville, TN 37243 Phone: 615/741-3421 Fax: 615/532-8451Email: [email protected]

Georgia DOTAssistant State Research Engineer

Office of Research15 Kennedy Drive

David M. Jared, P.E.

Forest Park, GA 30297-2534 Phone: 404/608-4799 Fax: 404/608-4752Email: [email protected] cell: 404.274.9262

North Carolina DOTTechnical Services Administrator

1516 Mail Service Center

Rodger D. Rochelle, P.E.

Raleigh, NC 27699-1516 Phone: 919/707-6601 Fax: 919/212-5711Email: [email protected] Zip: 27601


5

Region 3

Wisconsin DOTSecretary

4802 Sheboygan Avenue. Rom 120B

Mark Gottlieb

Madison, WI 53705 Phone: 608/266-1114 Fax: 608/266-9912Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Iowa DOTDirector, Research and Analytics

Performance and Technology Division800 Lincoln Way

Peggi Knight

Ames, IA 50010 Phone: 515/239-1530Email: [email protected]

Indiana DOTManager, Research

1205 Montgomery Street

Tommy E. Nantung, P.E.

West Lafayette, IN 47906 Phone: 765/463-1521 x248 Fax: 765/497-1665Email: [email protected]

Michigan DOTSuperior Region Engineer

Bureau of Highway Operations1818 3rd Avenue North

Randel R. Van Portfliet, P.E.

Escanaba, MI 49829 Phone: 906/786-1800 Fax: 906/789-9775Email: [email protected]

Region 4

Utah DOTDirector of Research

4501 South 2700 West

Cameron Kergaye

Salt Lake City, UT 84119 Phone: 801/965-2576 Fax: 801/965-4551Email: [email protected] Box 148410, 84114-8410

Wyoming DOTState Transportation Programming Engineer

5300 Bishop Boulevard

Timothy M. McDowell

Cheyenne, WY 82009 Phone: 307/777-4412 Fax: 307/777-4759Email: [email protected]

Washington State DOT

Director of Quality Assurance and Transportation System Safety

310 Maple Park Avenue SEPO Box 47418

John C. Milton, P.E.

Olympia, WA 98504 Phone: 360/704-6363 Fax: 360/704-6367Email: [email protected]; [email protected]. Phone# 360-704-6358Assistant's name is Linda Ellis

California DOTDeputy Director, Maintenance & Operations

P.O. Box 942873, MS 49

Steven K. "Steve" Takigawa

Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 Phone: 916/654-6823 Fax: 916/654-6608Email: [email protected]; [email protected]. Phone: 916-654-5266 (main)


6

AASHTO Standing Committeee on Research

NONVOTING OBSERVER MEMBERSFederal/Local Government Transportation Professionals

American Public Works Association National Association of County EngineersPOSITION VACANT POSITION VACANT

U.S. Department of TransportationEX OFFICIO MEMBERS

Federal Highway AdministrationAssociate Administrator for Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center6300 Georgetown Pike, Room T-306

Michael Trentacoste

McLean, VA 22101-2296 Phone: 202/493-3260 Fax: 202/493-3170Email: [email protected];[email protected]

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Motor Carrier Safety AdministrationChief Research Division

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE6th Floor (W68-312) West Building

Martin Walker


Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Federal Railroad AdministrationDirector, Office of Research and Development

Mail Stop 201200 New Jersey Avenue SE

John Tunna


Federal Railroad Administration

Federal Transit AdministrationAssociate Administrator for Research, Demonstration and Innovation

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, East BuildingRoom E43-314

Vincent Valdes

Washington, DC 20590 Phone: 202/366-3052Email: [email protected]

Federal Transit Administration

National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationAssociate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research

1200 New Jersey Avenue SENVS-300

Nathaniel Beuse

Washington, DC 20590 Phone: 202/366-4862Email: [email protected]

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and TechnologySenior Policy Advisor

RTG-30, E36-3321200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Timothy A. Klein


Office of the Asst. Sec. for Research & Technology

US Maritime AdministrationSenior Technical Advisor

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Todd L. Ripley


US Maritime Administration

21 November 2016 2:04 PM7

Standing Committee on Research (SCOR) Information Copies

Director, Technical ActivitiesAnn M. Brach

Transportation Research Board500 Fifth Street NW, Rm. 751

Phone: 202/334-2242 Fax: 202/334-3471

Email: [email protected]

Washington, DC 20001-2721

Transportation Program Planner IICurtis Tremaine Bradley

Massachusetts DOTOffice of Transportation Planning10 Park Plaza, Suite 4150

Phone: 857/368-8851 Fax: 857/368-0639


Boston, MA 02116

Administrative AssociateCynthia Butler

Transportation Research BoardCooperative Research Programs (Div. D)500 Fifth Street NW, 4th Floor

Phone: 202/334-3224 Fax: 202/334-2006



Director, Office of Corporate Research, Technology, and Innovation Management

Debra Elston

Federal Highway AdministrationTurner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, T305A6300 Georgetown Pike

Phone: 202/493-3181 Fax: 202/493-3475


McLean, VA 22101

Director, Office of Safety Research and DevelopmentMonique R. Evans, P.E.

Federal Highway AdministrationTurner-Fairbanks Highway Research Center6300 Georgetown Pike, T-301C

Phone: 202/493-3074Email: [email protected]

McLean, VA 22101-2296

Director of Engineering and Technical ServicesKing W. Gee

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials444 North Capitol StreetSuite 249

Phone: 202/624-5812 Fax: 202/624-5806

Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Washington, DC 20001

Division of Research, Innovation and System Information (DRISI)Joseph W. "Joe" Horton, P.E.

California DOTOffice of Safety Innovation and Cooperative Research MS-831227 O Street, 5th Floor

Phone: 916/654-8229Email: [email protected]. Box 942873 Zip: 94273-0001Cell 916/955-7841

Sacramento, CA 95814

Research Program Manager, Statewide Planning & ResearchCynthia L. Jones

Ohio DOT1980 West Broad StreetMail Stop 3280

Phone: 614/466-1975 Fax: 614/995-7047


Columbus, OH 43223

Chief, Bureau of ResearchRichard E. "Rick" Kreider, Jr., P.E.

Kansas DOTMaterials and Research Center2300 SW Van Buren Street

Phone: 785/296-1195 Fax: 785/296-2526


Topeka, KS 66611

Program CoordinatorJean Landolt

Federal Highway AdministrationTurner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, HRTM-16300 Georgetown Pike, T305


McLean, VA 22101

R&T National Partnership Program ManagerJohn Moulden

Federal Highway AdministrationTurner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, HRTM-26300 Georgetown Pike, T305


McLean, VA 22101

Director of Performance Management & ResearchJean A. Nehme, P.E.

Arizona DOT205 South 17th AvenueMD 075R


Phoenix, AZ 85007

21 November 2016 2:05 PM 8

Standing Committee on Research (SCOR) Information Copies

Director, Development & Strategic InitiativesMark R. Norman

Transportation Research Board500 Fifth Street NW, 4th Floor

Phone: 202/334-2941 Fax: 202/334-2003



Program DirectorJohn Pearson

Council of Deputy Ministers of Transportation & Highway Safety2323 St. Laurent Blvd.

Phone: 613/247-9347 Fax: 613/736-1395

Email: [email protected]. E-mail: [email protected]

Ottawa, ON K1G 4J8 Canada

Executive DirectorNeil J. Pedersen, P.E.

Transportation Research BoardExecutive Office500 Fifth Street NW, 4th Floor

Phone: 202/334-2936 Fax: 202/334-2920

Email: [email protected]. Phone: 443/829-1928


Senior Director Engineering ServicesLouis F. Sanders

American Public Transportation Association1300 I Street NWSuite 1200 East

Phone: 202/496-4886 Fax: 202/496-4335

Email: [email protected]. Phone: 202/309-5694 (mobile)

Washington, DC 20005

Research EngineerAnn M. Scholz, P.E.

New Hampshire DOT5 Hazen DriveMailstop 483

Phone: 603/271-1659 Fax: 603/271-8700


Concord, NH 03302-0483

Assistant State Research EngineerCynthia J. Smith, P.E.

Mississippi DOTResearch Division 86-01401 N. West Street

Phone: 601/359-7648 Fax: 601/359-7634

Email: [email protected] Box 1850, 39215-1850

Jackson, MS 39201

Executive DirectorSarah Wells

Transportation Association of Canada Secretariat2323 St. Laurent Boulevard

Phone: 613/736-1350 x229Email: [email protected]

Ottawa, ON K1G 4J8 Canada

Staff Research EngineerElisha Wright-Kehner

Arkansas SHTD10324 Interstate 30

Phone: 501/569-2074 Fax: 501/569-2070


Little Rock, AR 72209

21 November 2016 2:05 PM 9

Meeting Notes

AASHTO STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH (SCOR)

March 17-18, 2016 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

500 5th Street, NW, Keck 100 Washington, DC 20009

ATTENDANCE

Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary AASHTO Staff

Liaisons John Halikowski Dale Peabody Christopher W. Jenks Bud Wright Arizona DOT Maine DOT Transportation Research

Board (absent) James McDonnell King Gee

Region I Camille Crichton-Sumners, New Jersey DOT Robert Sack, New York State DOT Peter Healy, Rhode Island DOT Richard Woo, Maryland State Hwy. Adm. Region II Darryll Dockstader, Florida DOT (absent) Tanisha Johnson Hall, Tennessee DOT David Jared, Georgia DOT Rodger Rochelle, North Carolina DOT Region III Mark Gottlieb, Wisconsin DOT Amy Schutzbach, Illinois DOT Randel Van Portfliet, Michigan DOT Tommy Nantung, Indiana DOT Region IV Roger Healy, Alaska DOT (absent) Tim McDowell, Wyoming DOT Cameron Kergaye, Utah DOT Steve Takigawa, California DOT Affiliate Members Gerry Chaput, Ontario Ministry of Transportation Moh Lali, Alberta Transportation Ex Officio Members Timothy Klein, OST/R

Nathaniel Beuse, NHTSA (absent) Todd Ripley, U.S. Maritime Adm. Michael Trentacoste, FHWA (absent) John Tunna, FRA (absent) Vincent Valdes, FTA (absent) Martin Walker, FMCSA (absent) Nonvoting Observer Members Brian Keierleber, Buchanan County Iowa Fred Abadi, City of Waukesha (absent) Visitors Lexie Albe, AASHTO Joe Bared, FHWA Duane Brautigan, Consultant Rhonda Brooks, Washington State DOT Patricia Bush, AASHTO Patricia Cazenas, FHWA Shannon Eggleston, AASHTO Debra Elson, FHWA Monique Evans, FHWA Kelly Hardy, AASHTO Matt Hardy, AASHTO Gary Jensen, FHWA Jack Jernigan, FHWA David Kuehn, FHWA Jean Landolt, FHWA W. David Lee, Florida DOT Gummada Murthy, AASHTO Katherine Petros, FHWA

10

Visitors Keith Platte, AASHTO Joe Pol, FHWA Joe Porter, FHWA Lou Sanders, APTA Tim Schmidt, FHWA Mark Swanlund, FHWA Kevin Walsh, Massachusetts DOT Patrick Zelinski, AASHTO TRB Staff Ann Brach Mark Bush Cynthia Butler Waseem Dekelbab

Ray Derr Larry Goldstein Amir Hanna Ed Harrigan Chris Hedges Inam Jawed (via phone) Andy Lemer Roy Mesler Sheila Moore Stephan Parker Neil Pedersen David Reynaud Bill Rogers Dan Somerset Lori Sundstrom Jon Williams (via phone)

11

1. Welcome and Self-Introductions – Mr. John Halikowski, Chair

Mr. Halikowski, SCOR Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:30 am and welcomed all the attendees. A quorum of voting SCOR members was present to conduct official meeting business. Mr. Halikowski welcomed two additional new members, Ms. Tanisha Johnson Hall, TN DOT and Mr. Rodger Rochelle, NC DOT, to SCOR as well as introducing the new SCOR Vice-Chair, Mr. Dale Peabody of ME DOT, replacing Mr. Skip Paul, who retired from LA DOT last year. SCOR members and all the meeting attendees provided self-introductions.

a. TRB Greetings and Opening Remarks:

Mr. Neil Pederson, Executive Director TRB welcomed all SCOR members and attendees. His opening remarks included a general briefing on the new FAST Act transportation bill and its impacts on stable research funding. Mr. Pederson also highlighted the TRB emphasis areas and appreciated SCOR’s continued discussion and focus on those same strategic emphasis areas identifying critical and emerging transportation issues. He also expressed appreciation for the continued collaboration and partnerships among all organizations.

b. AASHTO Greetings and Opening Remarks: Mr. Bud Wright, Executive Director AASHTO welcomed all SCOR members and attendees and provided brief opening remarks, including the following: (1) The importance of the SCOR committee, its dedication from each of the state

transportation agencies and its role of identifying research of national significance. Thanking SCOR members on the collaboration of priorities and focus also on implementation including the relationship and coordination between the federal research program. The role of the partnership agencies to educate the public about the value of NCHRP and research and the results of those activities that benefit the nation and public.

(2) Congratulating and welcoming new members of SCOR including a special welcome to the new SCOR Vice Chair, Mr. David Jared. A special acknowledgement was also provided to recognize Mr. Chris Jenks, TRB who was also unable to attend.

(3) Highlights of the new AASHTO Strategic Plan, AASHTO Annual Report and AASHTO’s focus also on delivering results. Each are available on AASHTO’s website.

(4) The AASHTO committee structure and committee processes are being evaluated through an AASHTO Comprehensive Committee Review (CCR). This process is currently on-going via meetings and round table discussions. Mr. Wright encouraged SCOR members to also be involved and engaged in those discussions to provide input. These discussions are also occurring at each of the AASHTO regional annual meetings and planned at the AASHTO Spring Meeting. The CCR committee is

12

planning to deliver recommendations and a resolution for adoption at the AASHTO Fall Meeting.

(5) Highlights of the new FAST Act five year legislation bill. While not a ‘perfect’ bill,

it provides now at least a long term five year vision and funding ‘stability’ (2016-2020) that before was lacking due to all the short term ‘fixes’ of continuing resolutions. Issues remain with the Highway Trust Fund and future possible funding mechanisms that will impact the next bill beyond 2020.

(6) Highlights of AASHTO’s Engineering Fellowship Program. Initiated in 2001, the program remains a strong as part of the AASHTO organization, and the Engineering Division is welcoming three new 2016 fellows (one each from Arizona, Hawaii and Idaho DOTs) this year to serve one year terms. A call for the 2017 program is also planned for the future.

c. FHWA Greetings and Opening Remarks:

Ms. Debra Elston, Director, Office of Corporate Research, Technology and Innovation Management, and Ms. Monique Evans, Director, Office of Safety Research and Development represented FHWA in place of Mr. Michael Trentacoste, Associate Administrator FHWA Office of RD&T who was unavailable and sent his regards. Ms. Elston provided a briefing highlighting FHWA activities including the new FAST Act on the SPR federal program in relation to federal spending and NCHRP.

Mr. Halikowski thanked each of the speakers for their opening remarks and reiterated the importance of SCOR, the membership base, and the strategic partnerships between AASHTO, FHWA and TRB to deliver research results. He noted that Congress wants results and that SCOR plays an important and critical role in helping states deliver results. Mr. Halikowski concluded by remarking that NCHRP continues to be valuable and relevant to the state DOTs’ ability to provide services to the public.

2. Summary of Actions Required

Mr. Hedges briefly reviewed the agenda and highlighted items where actions or decisions would be required. Items included or offered to be presented for discussion later in the meeting including:

a. Formulation of the 2017 NCHRP Research Program.

b. Debriefing and continued focus on streamlining the procedures and processes of the NCHRP program.

c. Each of the strategic emphasis areas regarding freight transportation, resilience, and

transformational technologies.

13

d. Briefings on the NCHRP IDEA Program (NCHRP 20-30); Planning, and Environmental Quick Response programs (NCHRP 08-36 and NCHRP 25-25 respectively)

3. Approval of Previous Meeting Notes

Mr. Halikowski called for discussion and approval of the December 7-8, 2015 AASHTO SCOR meeting minutes. There was no discussion. A MOTION (McDowell WY DOT/Takigawa CA DOT) to approve the meeting notes was APPROVED unanimously.

4. Action Items from Previous Meeting

Mr. Hedges briefly reviewed action items and there were no outstanding action items from the December 7-8, 2015 AASHTO SCOR meeting. No additional formal actions were required. Brief updates were mentioned which included the following: a. TRB Strategic Emphasis Areas of Transformational Technologies, Resilience, and

Transportation & Public Health. SCOR’s Emphasis Areas regarding Freight Transportation, Resiliency and Transportation Transformational Technologies.

b. Response to SCOR’s Emphasis Areas. The research roadmaps are taking a phased approach.

c. Updates on Accelerating the Application of NCHRP Research Results and accompanying NCHRP Implementation Plan. The plan is moving forward. Discussion and identification of appropriate measurement to accurately assess success of implementation continue.

d. NCHRP Process Review. Staff continues to investigate ways to further accelerate the NCHRP process.

e. Kirk Steudle letter requesting support to prioritize bridge railings to determine compliance with AASHTO MASH, determine equivalent test levels and whether individual railing types could be submitted for FHWA eligibility or for further testing. $150,000 was allocated to the project which will be managed by the NCHRP within the 20-07 program. Phased AASHTO MASH requirements and sun-setting of NCHRP 350 is an important issue with all state DOTs.

5. NCHRP Project 25-26 Status Report (NOTE: Comments common to both Items 5 and 6

follow Item 6)

Mr. Kevin Walsh., Massachusetts DOT and Chair of NCHRP Project 25-25 provided a brief history of the project and the structure of the project panel whose members are the Chairs of the Standing Committee of Environment’s (SCOE) subcommittees and who overlap with SCOE’s Research Subcommittee. He explained that many NCHRP 25-25 projects (tasks) are primarily conducted in response to new regulatory requirements and to help state DOTs fulfill their environmental obligations under federal law by identifying cost effective

14

techniques for achieving regulatory compliance . Recent topics addressed by NCHRP 25-25 research include water quality and stormwater management, air quality modeling and greenhouse gas emissions, cultural resources, National Environmental Policy Act and, a variety of species-specific natural resources issues. He reviewed a variety of NCHRP 25-25 final reports that a number of state DOTs have used. Mr. Walsh reviewed the NCHRP 25-25 annual research cycle that begins with the solicitation of problem statements—from any source—for submission to the “Transportation and the Environment Research Ideas” (TERI) database maintained by the AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence. SCOE reviews the problem statements and selects those to forward for additional vetting and for submission to the NCHRP 25-25 panel. SCOE is careful to select projects that are highly relevant, and that have national significance. Projects should take approximately one year to complete and project budgets typically range from $75,000 to $120,000. NCHRP 25-25 final reports are posted on the Center for Environmental Excellence website, on TRB’s NCHRP 25-25 project webpage, and they are sent to SCOE Committee members. In response to questions about the deadline for problem statements and how procurement is handled, Mr. Walsh responded that a deadline is set each year that accommodates SCOE and Subcommittee meeting schedules, but in time for the NCHRP 25-25 panel to select projects in late Fall. RFPs are sent to a short list of consultants selected for multi-year periods that have the technical capabilities to respond to a variety of environmental research topics. Mr. Walsh thanked SCOR for the opportunity to talk about the value of research conducted under NCHRP project 25-25.

6. NCHRP Project 08-36 Status Report

David Lee, Florida DOT and Chair of NCHRP Project 08-36 provided a brief history of NCHRP project 08-36 and reviewed the current panel’s membership which is drawn from AASHTO regions, and includes someone from a metropolitan planning organization and a university. Collectively the panel represents different types of planning expertise. He explained that problem statements are due on April 1st of each year, that they can be submitted by anyone, and that the total funding requests received each year is typically twice the $600,000 available. The NCHRP 08-36 panel meets annually in May to select projects. Task budgets average $100,000 with the goal of completion in 1 year. Requests for proposals are sent to 3 short-listed contractors chosen to conduct research for NCHRP project 08-36. Mr. Lee noted that NCHRP 08-36 has conducted research that overlaps in other areas, including asset management. 127 tasks have been completed, 18 tasks are active, and 6 new projects are in development. Mr. Lee described NCHRP project 08-36, Task 120, “Snapshots of Planning Practices”. This task has produced 7 Snapshots that briefly summarize the state of practice in a variety of planning topics based on surveys of state DOTs; Snapshots are produced quarterly. The results of these surveys can highlight potential

15

research needs. He reviewed a list of NCHRP 08-36 task reports that have been used by a number of states and provided testimonials from a number of state DOTs. When asked if the Snapshots were essentially syntheses, Mr. Lee responded that he thinks of them as ‘synthesis light” and noted that they only use approximately 15% of the annual funds available for NCHRP 08-36. He further explained that the Snapshots are 1 of 3 approaches used by SCOP to conduct research; the other 2 are full-blown NCHRP research projects and the less expensive, quick response research that is a typical task under NCHRP project 08-36. In response to questions about how NCHRP 08-36 research reports are made available, Mr. Lee report that SCOP has built a standalone website – www.statewideplanning.org – that holds all the NCHRP 08-36 research reports as well as other transportation-planning research reports or other resources of interest to the transportation planning community. NCHRP 08-36 final reports are also posted on TRB’s NCHRP 08-36 project webpage. Mr. Lee thanked SCOR for the opportunity to provide information about NCHRP project 08-36. The following comments from SCOR members applied to both NCHRP project 08-36 and NCHRP project 25-25.

• There is interest in identifying how to foster better integration between SCOP’s, SCOE’s

and SCOR’s decision-making processes for selecting research topics and identifying the priorities that may be shared by all committees.

• While distributing final reports to committee members is important, there is no distribution mechanism to reach a larger audience and the broader transportation communities may not know of their existence. How can these research results be widely publicized and made available?

• How can SCOR receive notice of the due dates for project statements?

• These programs weren’t intended to be stand-alone research programs; they were intended to support committee activities and to be nimble enough to address immediate committee needs when a small research project was an appropriate solution.

• Because the individual task budgets are modest, is it reasonable to expect definitive results? Should some of these tasks be considered rather as Phase 1 of a larger effort that would be funded as a full NCHRP project? This would maintain the quick turnaround aspect of these programs while tying them to the regular NCHRP program.

• Should the individual task budgets be increased to obtain more significant results, or to include some implementation activities? The increased focus on implementation of regular NCHRP project results should also apply to NCHRP 08-36 and 25-25. Should some of their annual funding be dedicated to dissemination and implementation support activities?

16

• Although peer exchanges aren’t really research, they can support the dissemination of

results and encourage implementation.

• Other than anecdotes, there is no information available on how research results from the quick response projects are being used and what impact they are having. How can implementation results be systematically tracked?

• In order to keep these quick response efforts operating on a timely basis, NCHRP does not provide the full suite of NCHRP administrative services, e.g., editorial review and publication support, while it meets the expectations and requirements for quality of TRB’s parent organization – the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

• Assembling task panels for a task panel requires more NCHRP staff effort than for assembling a panel for a regular NCHRP project. This is challenging and time consuming because panel recruitment solicitations are not widely distributed and specific expertise may not be found in the limited population that is alerted to the opportunity for panel membership.

• The NCHRP management responsibilities for these small projects are nearly the same as a full NCHRP project. Regarding the value of NCHR staff effort – should that be spent on larger projects, or on these small projects?

7. Research Roadmaps Funded by NCHRP in December 2015

Mr. Hedges summarized the action taken by SCOR at their December 2015 meeting – to fund 3 new NCHRP projects to develop research road maps for 3 issue areas: freight, public health and transportation, and transformative technology other than connected and autonomous vehicles. The road maps should identify the priority research needs in each of these areas. The budget for each is $250,000. Each project has been assigned to staff; Bill Rogers is responsible for freight, Lori Sundstrom is responsible for public health and transportation, and Ray Derr is responsible for transformative technology other than connected and autonomous vehicles. Each of these projects will get underway soon

8. Formulation of FY 2016 Program Mr. Hedges highlighted changes in the schedule from previous years. The two key differences were that submittals of new problem statements and project continuation requests were due October 15 and that AASHTO Committee comments were solicited earlier and included with the candidates for funding. Mr. Hedges then presented some summary statistics on the problem statements received. Mr. Hedges then presented the projected program budget for SCOR’s consideration and reported that $30,266,244 is available for programming. There was discussion that some of these funds may be held so they are available for off-cycle requests.

17

Regarding AASHTO Committee Support Projects, Mr. McDonnell said that the new request for a set-aside of funds from the Standing Committee on Performance Management is different since it is a one-time request for a current catalog of needs (similar to a research roadmap) rather than an ongoing committee support effort. The request is partially driven by federal requirements but will also look beyond those limited measures. It was noted that there are ongoing concerns about set-asides consuming more of the program budget but Mr. Sack noted that the ongoing AASHTO reorganization may affect this. Mr. Hardy said that dissemination of the results would target the SCOPM members who are responsible for performance measurement activities at the state DOTs. It was agreed that all of the Committee Support Projects should: • Prepare a description of the processes used from solicitation through deployment, • Concentrate on systematically assessing the return on investment, and • Consider using task-order contracts for emerging needs.

Mr. Sack asked if the deliverables from these Committee Support Projects have the same level of quality as typical NCHRP products. Mr. Pedersen noted that each project is peer reviewed by the project panel. The products do not receive any technical editing. Mr. Hedges introduced the consolidated agenda that is composed of funding requests that rated 4.0 or higher by RAC and SCOR. Mr. Sack moved for its approval and Mr. Jared seconded the motion. The motion passed.

Notes on Individual Requests (see Table 2 for the full list of project recommendations)

• Item 11 (New Project 20-120, Problem Statement 2016-SP-04). Should address operations and

maintenance costs. • Item 12 (New Project 22-33, Problem Statement 2016-C-02). The project should be coordinated

with the related NRC study. • Item 16 (New Project 08-108, Problem Statement 2016-A-05). The project should be

coordinated with Item 19 (Problem Statement 2016-A-06, New Project 20-118). • Item 17 (New Project 03-127, Problem Statement 2016-G-12). The project should be coordinated

with related efforts. • Item 19 (New Project 20-118, Problem Statement 2016-A-06). One time allocation with a

request for a report explaining the process, benefits, and impact of the research. • Item 21 (New Project 13-06, Problem Statement 2016-F-02). The project should be coordinated

with NCHRP 13-04. • Item 22 (Current Project 03-114). The project should focus on value of ATM. • Item 26 (New Project 03-126, Problem Statement 2016-C-10). The project should aim at

developing guidance. • Item 31(New Project 03-126, Problem statement 2016-B-10). Conditional approval is given at

this time with final decision to be made in December 2016 based on the results of NCHRP Project 20-07/Task 392. More funds probably needed in the future.

• Item 32 (New Project 14-40, Problem Statement 2016-F-06). Consider including elements from Item 84 (Problem Statement 2016-F-05) on safety effects of roadside mowing practices.

• Item 43 (New Project 08-111, Problem Statement 2016-B-17). Coordinate with Midwest Freight Group Pooled Fund Study.

• Item 49 (New Project 15-66, Problem Statement 2016-G-16). Include safety in the scope (possibly using SHRP 2 Naturalistic Driving Study).

• Items 51/53 (New Project 09-62, Problem Statements 2016-D-13 and 2016-D-11). Consider elements of Items 61 and 82 (Problem Statements 2016-D-10 and 2016-D-09).

18

• Item 72 (New Project 20-115, Problem statement 2016-A-01). Funding of $750,000 will be provided by TSA for a normal NCHRP project. FHWA Operations is expected to provide the project fund the project if not funded by TSA; otherwise reconsider.

• Item 24 (Not Selected, Problem Statement 2016-F-07). Project 14-36 will address; panel will decide on use of remaining funds.

• Item 33 (Not Selected, Problem Statement 2016-F-01). Not an issue for some states. • Item 35 (Not Selected, Problem Statement 2016-D-03). Will be addressed in NCHRP Project 12-

108. • Item 65 (Not Selected, Problem Statement 2016-G-05). Coordinate with Traffic Control Devices

Pooled Fund Study.

See Table 2 for full list of project recommendations 9. Debriefing on the FY2017 Program Formulation Procedures

SCOR members expressed support and satisfaction with the program formulation procedures, and for the use of research roadmaps to identify strategic needs.

10. Strategic Emphasis Areas for FY2018

At approximately 2:40 pm, Mr. Halikowski invited Mr. Hedges to comment on NCHRP’s strategic research initiatives. Mr. Hedges referred to the topic-identification process described on page 152 of the Working Papers document. He explained that TRB’s strategic emphasis areas (transformational technologies, resilience, and transportation and public health) overlap with SCOR’s previously identified areas (transformational technologies, resilience, and freight transportation) so that there are 4 topic areas are currently highlighted for soliciting research problem statements. He said that NCHRP management is committed to an annual review of the topic areas and invited SCOR members to send him any comments and suggestions they might have.

11. TRB Task Force on Transformational Technologies and Accelerated Research

Mr. Mark Norman suggested that rapidly advancing transportation technology presents both huge challenges and tremendous opportunities for the public sector. If transportation agencies are to facilitate innovation while at the same time protecting the public interest, many questions need to be answered. A dynamic, robust, and timely research program can help provide these answers. Under traditional research processes, it typically takes years from the inception of a research problem statement to the issuance of the final research report. There are many good reasons for this. However, we need to ask ourselves if this traditional model can continue to meet our needs in this age of rapid change. If not, what can be done about it? A TRB dialog is underway to help the following questions: • Are our traditional transportation research processes immune from the “disruption” that these

technologies are generating in the public and private sectors?

19

• Do we need to find ways to streamline research processes while still maintaining the credibility of research results?

• If so, are there other models from other sectors that we should be looking at? The goal of this dialog is to generate additional information on the following for use by our stakeholders: • Roadblocks faced by public agencies in conducting research and delivering research results in

timeframes consistent with the pace of rapidly evolving transformational technologies, especially automated vehicle technology.

• To overcome these roadblocks, public agencies might employ options to encourage use and implementation of research results by the private sector, academia, and other sectors.

• Measures that can be taken to protect the quality of the research results when employing accelerated research processes.

• Steps that TRB and others can take to help enhance the ability of transportation agencies to conduct and deliver quality research in a timelier manner.

This dialog was launched at the 2016 TRB Annual Meeting, and is continuing with sessions at the CUTC Annual Meeting (June), Automated Vehicle Symposium (July), and the AASHTO RAC/TRB State Representatives Annual Meeting (July).

12. NCHRP IDEA Program

Mr. Duane Brautigam provided a briefing on the NCHRP IDEA Program (SP20-30). He recognized Mr. Chris Hedges for his support, Dr. Inam Jawed who holds the institutional knowledge of the program, and panel members. Mr. Brautigam reviewed the idea program concept, eligibility of funding, available funding, and product development process. He highlighted a number of successful products that were developed under the idea program.

13. Research Advisory Committee Report

Mr. Dale Peabody shared some of the activities that RAC has been doing in support of SCOR. He explained that RAC leadership consists of chair, vice chair and regional chair/vice chairs. The Regions are meeting throughout the year to conduct business including sharing of best practices, mentoring, compiling High Value Research projects, and planning the summer meeting. Mr. Peabody noted the help provided to new members of RAC. RAC has developed checklists, a mentoring program, and a very informative website. These tools not only can benefit the new RAC member and their agency but also encourages active participation in RAC. It has also enabled RAC to match up a new member with one of the more seasoned veterans of RAC so that they can have periodic phone calls or emails. Another important tool is the SCOR/RAC website that provides a forum for sharing research information, collaboration, and communications. He thanked Chris Hedges, Natassja Linzau, and Maina Tran for maintaining the website.

20

One hot topic for the RAC Task Force is intellectual property (IP). Many states are grappling with IP rights issues and education is needed. A good source is NCHRP Report 779 that was presented to RAC during the last summer meeting. Finally, the 2016 Summer RAC / TRB State Representatives meeting is on July 25 - 28 at Providence, RI.

14. AASHTO Electronic Publications Policy

Mr. Jim McDonnell summarized the AASHTO’s Board of Directors’ new policy for distribution of published reports from 10 free hard copies to DOT members and 1 free hard copy to associate members (all copies delivered to the CEO’s office) to a policy of providing 10 free hard copies or 5 electronic licenses. In addition, AASHTO is attempting to broaden the notification process to ensure that committee members become aware of publication availability. Currently, the notification of publication along with the downloading instructions goes to the board, the standing committee, and the subcommittee that produced the publication. The electronic licenses are simultaneous licenses. They can be used any number of times, but only 5 at a time. Access may be shared any number of times through sharing of log-in information. Internet connection is required. DOTs will designate a librarian or other party to control access to the password for downloading the publications. One result of the new policy will likely be a reduction in publication sales revenue.

15. Organizational Status Reports

a. NCHRP: Mr. Hedges referred the committee to page 159-197 in the Working Papers for information on the status of NCHRP.

b. AASHTO: Mr. Wright discussed ramifications of the FAST Act and the reorganization

of the AASHTO committee structure. Some existing committees may be abolished and new ones established to better align the structure with the AASHTO strategic plan and mission. The goal is to encourage better coordination among the committees and enhance their ability to address challenges in a timely, responsive manner.

c. TCRP, ACRP, NCFRP, NCRRP, and HMCRP: Mr. Hedges referred the committee to pages 198-208 in the Working Papers for information on the status of TCRP, ACRP, NCFRP, NCRRP, and HMCRP.

d. FHWA: Ms. Monique Evans gave an update on selected items of interest to SCOR. First, on the implementation of the FAST Act, FHWA has developed a website with information about highway-related provisions as well as fact sheets for each of the FAST Act programs. Although State Planning and Research funds were increased, FHWA’s research program funding was substantially reduced. Second, seven finalists have been selected for the Smart City Challenge Program, with final selection scheduled for June 2016. Third, the UTC Program was funded for $377.5 million over five years, and for the first time, two-year institutions are eligible to partner in the UTC consortia. Fourth,

21

the Transportation Pooled Fund Program has now conducted four webinars and trained over 450 individuals on the Pooled Fund Program and Procedures. Finally, she mentioned that 2016 marks the 50th anniversary of the creation of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

e. SHRP2: Ms. Debra Elston gave a brief update on SHRP2, which has now seen six rounds of implementation, with participation from all states. Now is the last chance for states to apply for funding “SHRP2-Moving Us Forward” and FHWA is setting up a $750,000 pooled fund that states can leverage.

f. OST/R: Mr. Timothy Klein discussed activities within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation/Research (OST/R) including release of the grant solicitation for the next round of University Transportation Centers and Smart City challenge planning grant. He noted a couple interesting developments including: (1) a smart phone app that interfaces with the traffic signal controller to give pedestrian warning and (2) deploying sensors to detect early stress in pipelines. A list of activates is provided in the attached presentation material.

g. TRB: Mr. Pedersen commended SCOR’s efforts in selecting NCHRP projects. He added that the SCOR meeting in December 2015 was a particularly good meeting in terms of getting priorities for NCHRP and in looking at the issues associated with the NCHRP program. He recognized NCHRP staff for managing a significant workload on behalf of SCOR while meeting expectations for managing contractors, ensuring high results, and in some cases, dealing with very difficult contract issues. He complimented Chair, Mr. Halikowski on his leadership of SCOR and for guiding a decision-making process based on consensus. Mr. Pedersen gave a status report on the TRB annual meeting that once again produced a record attendance of 12,310 attendees. Attendees appeared to have adjusted to new venue. TRB was very fortunate to have Secretary Foxx give one of the keynote speeches on the role of transportation in economic empowerment to a very large audience. Dr. Chris Urmson, Director of Google’s Self-Driving Car Program spoke about Google’s program at the Chairman’s Lunch; transformational technology is one of TRB’s three strategic focus areas that also includes resilience and the relationship between transportation and public health. He noted that one or more of these three focus areas were the subject of 76 different sessions at the TRB Annual Meeting. Mr. Pedersen mentioned that TRB was very fortunate under the FAST Act to share in the increase in SPR funding of 5% during the first year and about a 2% increase each year thereafter; this will provide a period of long-term stable funding. However, TRB’s core program was negatively affected by the FAST Act’s cuts to FHWA’s research and technology development program. As a result, FHWA had to reduce their contribution to

22

TRB’s core program by 25% or about $450,000 per year. This left TRB with a challenge of trying to make up about $700,000 per year gap for a core programs. Mr. Pedersen is considering full range of options right now to address this budget issue including raising the annual meeting registration fees. This option will not affect DOTs because they receive complimentary registration. TRB is looking at opportunities to reduce or eliminate some costs associated with printing and whether some documents should only be available online since many stakeholders and customers are increasingly accessing them online. The printing cost is quite expensive but there are other costs associated with producing only digital publications. Regarding NCHRP, Mr. Pedersen explained that they are working on delivering research results faster. He has concluded that we need to be thinking about fundamental changes in how we address top priority issues, e.g. developing research roadmaps for strategic issues and then allocating money for projects defined by a roadmap. He suggested that the National Academies may have alternative procurement methods that could be used to shorten contracting cycle times. Mr. Pedersen reported that TRB is working on ways to identify and discuss the value of research so that better and more useful information about the benefits of research can be provided to Congress and other political leaders. To that end, a consultant has developed a communication framework that TRB will begin to use. Another area receiving a great deal of attention is how to best support and facilitate state DOT implementation of NCHRP research results and what resources are needed to do this. He noted that much can be learned from the SHRP2 experience that is directly applicable to NCHRP. He looks forward to working with all parties on a collaborative effort to improve implementation. Mr. Pedersen concluded by noting that improving diversity throughout TRB is one of his priorities as Executive Director. He explained that while TRB will continue to convene communities of technically accomplished professionals, more needs to be done to include more minorities, women, and young professionals in all facets of TRB’s activities. He noted that during the TRB Annual Meeting, the young professionals mentioned to him that they are finding it difficult to be selected to serve on CRP panels and they challenged TRB to address this issue.

Mr. Halikowski noted that SCOR appreciates Mr. Pedersen leadership and the ideas he is bringing forward. Mr. Halikowski agreed that diversity presents a challenge and it especially hard to get young professionals involved. He suggested that there is no better career development opportunity for DOTs’ young professionals than serving on a CRP panel, and that it benefits the DOT as much as it benefits the individual.

a. Transportation Association of Canada

23

Mr. Moh Lali mentioned that this SCOR Meeting will be his last one as he will retire in summer of 2016. He has enjoyed the five years that he has been with SCOR and the learning experience He appreciate the interaction between Canada and the world and encouraged this group, SCOR, for exchanging the information with other parts of the world. Mr. Lali gave an example about using NCHRP reports in Alberta and customizes them to fit the needs. Mr. Halikowski thanked Mr. Lali for his contribution to SCOR and wished him the best in his retirement.

16. Other Business/Parking Lot

No discussion.

17. Future Activities AASHTO Spring Meeting May 24-26, 2016 Des Moines, Iowa AASHTO RAC Meeting July 25-28, 2016 Providence, RI AASHTO SCOR Meeting December 5-6, 2016 Irvine, California

18. Adjournment

24

Report to the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research

from the

SCOR Working Group on NCHRP AASHTO Committee-Support (ACS) Projects

October 2016

Members: Bob Sack (Chair), Deb Elston, Michael Trentacoste, David Jared, Cameron Kergaye, Randy Van Portfliet, Jim McDonnell, Dale Peabody, Floyd Roehrich, Amy Schutzbach, Chris Hedges.

Background

At the December 2015 meeting of SCOR, there was a discussion about four projects that support AASHTO committees: (20-07 – Highways, 25-25 – Environment, 08-36 – Planning, and 20-65 – Public Transportation). At the March SCOR meeting, the chairs of projects 08-36 and 25-25 delivered presentations to SCOR. SCOR agreed to form a task force to look more closely at these ACS projects and to report back with findings and recommendations.

Several issues related to the ACS projects were identified at the December 2015 and March 2016 SCOR meetings include:

1. These projects were set up to address the immediate needs of AASHTO committees. In recent years, the committees no longer have enough immediate needs to expend their budgets. Instead, they issue annual calls for problem statements and have become more like a “mini research programs”.

2. NCHRP staff believe that scopes of the problem statements submitted to these projects often exceed the resources available. The lines between AASHTO-support projects and full NCHRP projects are no longer distinct, except for an arbitrary funding limit around $100,000 and a duration of fewer than 12 months.

3. Accountability for the projects selected and conducted in these four programs has been transferred to their respective oversite panels. SCOR members have expressed concerns about funding projects for which SCOR has no direct input on project selection.

4. The results from these ACS projects are typically sent to the committee that requested them. RAC and SCOR members expressed concerns that these results were not disseminated more widely or in a more consistent manner.

5. Although these programs were originally intended to produce quick-response results, NCHRP staff are finding it difficult to initiate these projects in a timely manner. Managing four $100,000 projects takes more time and effort than one $400,000 project. 08-36 and 25-25 benefit from prequalified, on-call task-order contractors. Up to now, the 20-07 project addresses a wide range of topics that are considered too diverse to make task-order contracting practicable.

27

6. The format, quality, and selection criteria for the ACS projects vary widely.

Discussion

• The ACS projects should not be judged solely on what they were originally set up to accomplish, but also on the merits of the current state to which they have evolved.

• The expectations for these projects are that they produce high-quality research that is valuable to the transportation community and their business processes are conducted in a fair, equitable, and accountable manner. Rather than supporting the committee, it could be accurately stated that the funds are supporting the committee’s constituents.

• Other AASHTO committees have requested their own annual programs and been turned down. Concerns were expressed about allocating too much money for continuing projects and having less available for full NCHRP project funding on high priority topics.

• At a previous meeting, SCOR set the maximum amount for AASHTO Committee-Support projects at 10% of their overall budget.

• RAC and the Standing Committee on Performance Management (SCOPM) each submitted requests for a bundle of specific projects with detailed scopes, budgets, and timeframes. They were both approved by SCOR with no expectation of a continuing annual commitment. This model seemed to address most of the concerns expressed by SCOR on the present ACS projects.

• This year, SCOR set aside $2 million of its annual budget to address high priority, time sensitive funding requests that take place off the normal cycle. This pot of money could be used to address real quick-response needs of AASHTO committees at any time during the year.

• A revision of the AASHTO organizational structure is pending; the current committees receiving funding support may no longer exist as separate entities after the change. However, the impending change does make this an ideal time to evaluate new procedures.

28

Alternative Approaches

The task force identified three possible options.

1. The do-nothing option; ASPs continue with business as usual. Other committees can request annual funding, but the total amount of ASPs must be capped at 10% of SCOR’s research budget.

2. Business as usual, but overall budgets are reduced for some or all of the ASPs.

3. A new approach where funding for general committee support and urgent needs are separated.

The task force did not feel that options 1 or 2 were particularly helpful and devoted most of its attention to option 3.

Recommendation

The recommended new approach has two separate components:

a) For urgent needs, any AASHTO committee can submit a request to SCOR at any time of year. As they did in FY2017, SCOR will reserve a fund for such off-cycle requests of approximately $2 million. For requests below a certain ceiling, say $250,000, SCOR would review the requests and vote by email ballot.

b) For non-urgent research, the committee identifies tasks in advance and submits a request to the NCHRP with the specific tasks identified and a budget assigned to each. SCOR could approve the request in toto or elect to fund specific tasks within the request. Submissions could be wide open or subject to certain limitations to make their requests more manageable by NCHRP staff.* (see below)

Pros and Cons of the new approach

Pros:

• The committees are better equipped to handle urgent needs.

• For non-urgent needs, committees can identify research tasks on an annual schedule that matches the current NCHRP timeline.

29

• SCOR members reviewing funding requests will know exactly what the money will be used for, and can evaluate the committee-support projects on an equal footing to other NCHRP problem statement submittals.

• AASHTO, TRB, and FHWA will have an opportunity to review all tasks and comment on the need for the research and the adequacy of the requested budget for the proposed scopes. This already holds true for full NCHRP projects submitted or recommended by AASHTO committees.

• Funding is available to any and all AASHTO committees who can identify specific needs, tasks, and funding requirements.

Cons:

• The October deadline for funding requests may not line up with the committees’ meeting schedule. (However, they are already used to this deadline for submission of full NCHRP problem statements).

• The AASHTO committees cannot depend on an annual allotment to support their constituent needs.

• * If there are no limits on the research that committees can request, we may end up funding even more small projects, which will make it difficult for staff to manage the program effectively and efficiently. The task force suggests that SCOR consider placing limitations on the committee-support projects in one or more ways:

1. Place a cap on the total amount of funding that will be provided to each committee.

2. Identify a maximum budget for each task of about $150,000. Projects larger than this should be submitted to the full NCHRP.

3. Identify a minimum budget for each task, below which the NCHRP is not an efficient model.

4. Place a cap on the number of tasks that will be funded for each committee.

Experience has shown that funding a smaller number of larger projects should produce more valuable research and enable more effective and efficient staff support.

30

Other Recommended Actions

1. NCHRP will evaluate the possibilities of prequalified task order contractors for the 20-07 project supporting the Standing Committee on Highways.

2. AASHTO will develop improved procedures for the distribution and findability of the

ACS projects.

3. ACS reports will be indexed and submitted to TRID.

4. NCHRP will post the final contractors reports on their website, linked from the project write-up.

5. For reports of broad interest to the transportation community, either 1) AASHTO

publishes them in their regular report series, or 2) NCHRP publishes them in the Research Results Digest or Web-Only Docs series.

31

SCOR Agenda Item 7 NCHRP 03-126, Operational Standards for Highway Infrastructure

Background

NCHRP 20-07/Task 392 was approved at the 2016 AASHTO Annual Meeting to explore the need for an AASHTO Operations Guide. NCHRP 03-126 was tentatively programmed in March 2016 to develop the Guide, pending approval by SCOR at the December 2016 Meeting. In particular, SCOR asked for a better description of the guide and a better sense of its usefulness.

Recommended SCOR Action

Approval for NCHRP 03-126 to move forward with development of the guide ($500,000).

Status of NCHRP 20-07/Task 392

The Parsons Brinckerhoff research team, led by Les Jacobson (formerly of the Washington DOT), has conducted a literature review and 3-hour workshop at the August meeting of the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Transportation Systems Management and Operations (STSMO) to frame an Operations Guide. A broad range of participants participated in a webinar on December 1, 2016 to present the concepts and solicit feedback. A detailed outline is being developed (working outline follows) as well as a roadmap of activities to produce the guide.

Purpose and Scope of an AASHTO Operations Guide

As the nation’s surface transportation system evolves to meet safety, mobility, and travel time reliability challenges; a range of innovative operational strategies are being applied by state and local agencies. Examples of these strategies include, but are not limited to, managed lanes, dynamic shoulder use, work zone traffic management strategies, variable speed limits, ramp metering, and infrastructure for connected vehicles. These strategies interact with the traditional geometric design elements documented in the current version of “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” (the Green Book) and may affect design decisions. In addition, the focus on operations in many transportation agencies has resulted in shifts in organizational structure, processes, and practices in those agencies. An AASHTO Guide to Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSM&O) that complements the Green Book would be beneficial to many transportation agencies as they increase their emphasis on operating the system.

The proposed Operations Guide will assist those considering TSM&O strategies by providing guidance on a range of topics, including, but not limited to:

• Incorporating operational strategies into the project development and implementation process;

• Developing internal processes and capabilities required to support the development, implementation, operation, and maintenance of TSM&O strategies; and

• Developing external processes and activities (e.g. traffic incident management, work zone management) that should be considered as part of the TSM&O strategy development and implementation process.

32

Key Audiences

Given the diverse nature of TSM&O strategies, the key audiences of the Operations Guide are wide-ranging and would include anyone that may be involved in their development and implementation. This includes, but is not limited to, planners, designers, traffic engineers, and operations staff. Further, it is envisioned that the Operations Guide would be useful to a broad range of stakeholders including, but not limited to, state and local DOTs, transit service providers, commercial vehicle operators, and public safety service providers.

Support for the Operations Guide

As part of NCHRP 20-07(392), the project team has conducted outreach and solicited input from practitioners and stakeholders. This includes a workshop with over 50 participants held in conjunction with the August 2016 AASHTO STSMO Meeting. Interviews are underway to build upon the information generated at the workshop. There is broad support for the Operations Guide among the workshop participants and the interviewees.

The AASHTO Subcommittee on Transportation Systems Management and Operations (STSMO) has committed to being responsible for the Operations Guide. The Subcommittee sees the guide advancing AASHTO’s goals by providing value to members and providing innovative technical and professional services and products.

Relationship to AASHTO Green Book

At the Spring 2016 AASHTO Meeting, SCOH resolved that the Green Book should provide research-based and peer-reviewed guidance on flexibility in design for a multi-modal transportation system, both in the short term and the longer term. NCHRP Research Report 839, A Performance-Based Highway Geometric Design Process, will be published in a prepublication version before the end of 2016. It presents a longer-term vision for the Green Book that includes:

• Geometric design solutions should address objective, quantitative measures of transportation performance;

• 3R and reconstruction projects should focus on fixing actual problems with mobility, access, safety, or state-of-good repair;

• All potential, legal road users should be explicitly addressed during design; and • Operational solutions should be integrated with geometric elements.

Relationship to NCHRP 20-24(112), Connected Road Classification System Concept Development

This project will develop and assess a system of classifying roads regarding the readiness for use by connected and automated vehicles. This is one aspect of the Operations Guide and the 20-24 project will provide content on that topic.

33

Working Outline for the Operations Guide

Introduction • Background on TSM&O • Foundational work (SHRP2 and Capability Maturity Model (CMM) efforts, Planning for

Operations, etc.) • Business Case for TSM&O • Need for the Guide • Relationship to other Resources

o Include the Green Book update effort o Include discussion of typical operations strategies with short descriptions included in

an Appendix o National Operations Center of Excellence o Other organizations and resources

• Organization of the Guide o Include incremental approach to its development

Incorporating Operational Strategies into the Project Development Process Process Oriented

• Definition of project purpose and need and consideration of how operational strategies help achieve them (practical design)

• Incorporation of operational strategies into the project development process (e.g. project scoping, geometric design decisions, safety and operational analyses, construction phasing decisions)

Project Oriented • Standard features supporting operations that should be considered for inclusion in capital

projects (detection, CCTV, etc.) • Typical designs for operational features and strategies

Internal Processes to Support Operations (Capabilities, not technical expertise) • Primarily based on CMM concepts, guidance, and tools (e.g. TSM&O program planning,

systems engineering, performance measurement)

TSM&O Strategies • One-page overviews of TSM&O strategies, included as an Appendix

o Examples include Traffic Incident Management, Active Traffic Management, Ramp Metering, Integrated Corridor Management/Managed Freeways

34

NCHRP 20-106 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation's Future – Options Going

Forward

Standing Committee on Research December 5-6, 2016

35

Our Quandary

• SCOR approved FY 2016 funds for a summit and committee report to follow up on the recommendations in TRB Special Report 313, Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future.

• We’ve struggled to define this activity in a way that will make good use of NCHRP funds.

• We seek SCOR guidance going forward.

36

Background

• A 2008 FHWA Scanning Tour of research programs in Belgium, France, Sweden, Japan, and South Korea identified promising practices they hoped could be applied in the United States.

• These practices tied transportation research agendas directly to national goals and elevated the importance of transportation research.

37

Background, 2

• SCOR funded a subsequent TRB policy study, SR 313, called for a new national research framework for “prioritizing, funding, assembling, and coordinating” transportation research – across federal and state agencies and the private sector.

• Committee dubious about ability to replicate R&D focus of smaller nations or US willingness to adopt some version of EU R&D framework model.

38

Background, 3

• SR 313 recommends – Cross-agency coordination of federal

transportation research by OSTP; – Leadership of research within USDOT by a chief

scientist in OST; – Greater investment in basic research; – A summit of federal, state, and private research

program leaders to define research challenges and possible ways of implementing the proposed framework in US context.

39

Concerns Regarding Proceeding with Summit

• Lack of clarity and confusion about the proposed “framework”;

• Complexity & diversity of US transportation and related R&D programs;

• Lack of interest by federal R&D agency staff contacted outside of USDOT;

• Doubts about the prospects of coordinating across diverse public and private, federal and state programs (herding cats).

40

Test Run

• May 2016 “mini-summit” of 12 experts in research across surface modes, federal/state; public/private to discuss merits of proceeding with summit;

• Emphasis on understanding where/why research enterprise failing – no strong sense of that from group;

• No strong endorsement for a summit, but general agreement with merits of independent process for monitoring/commenting on whole transportation research enterprise.

41

Options

1. End project and return funds to SCOR for redistribution as desired;

2. Continue to explore this area, but through smaller, discrete NCHRCP projects

42

Option 2 possible NCHRP projects

1. Conduct a complete survey (public and private) of transportation and transportation-related R&D program goals, investments & nature of R&D;

2. Evaluate portfolio of applied/basic R&D; 3. Case studies of successes and failures in

transportation innovation; 4. Evaluate merits of an ongoing

monitoring/commentary on all transportation R&D.

43

In-Service Performance of Energy-absorbing W-beam Guardrail

End Treatments

Standing Committee on Research December 5, 2016

44

Background

• This project began as an NCHRP study, which was cancelled due to the litigation and controversy over the Trinity ET+ – Some panel members had perceived conflicts of

interest • Because of the controversy and policy

implications, the project became a TRB policy study.

• Project coordinating with ongoing FHWA-state data collection and analysis.

45

Study scope

• The committee was asked to – develop a research design for evaluating the in-

service crash performance of guardrail end treatments,

– determine the data required to carry out the analysis, – examine data systems in selected states to determine

whether the required data would be available, and – identify appropriate next steps for carrying out such

evaluations.

46

Members

• Hugh McGee, independent consultant • Linda Boyle, Univ. Washington • James Bryden, NYDOT (ret.) • Doug Gabauer, Bucknell • Shauna Hallmark, Iowa State • David Harkey, UNC • Doug Harwood, MRI Global • Tom Hicks, MD-DOT (ret.)

47

Members (cont.)

• Cing-Dao ”Steve” Kan, George Mason • Susan Martinovich, CH2M-Hill • Priya Prasad, NAE, Ford Motor Co. (ret.) • Shane Reese, Brigham Young University • Omar Smadi, Iowa State

48

Issues

• Casualties due to collisions with end treatments rare events (fewer than 100 fatalities nationally);

• Sparse data on performance (proper installation and maintenance, non-injury collisions, completeness and accuracy of police reports); and

• Sparse data on inventory – type and model, location, vintage;

• Crashes with other roadside hardware much more frequent than with end treatments.

49

Key Questions

• What is purpose of evaluation? – Aggregate safety assessment? – Distinguishing performance by type? – Improvement in crash tests used for testing

designs?

• Different evaluation goals entail different methodological and data challenges.

50

Key Concerns

• Options to address cost/affordability of potentially extensive data collection;

• Cost-benefit considerations of evaluations compared with other safety priorities;

• Potential role of modeling/simulation to supplement tests;

• Choosing achievable evaluation designs for all roadside hardware appropriate for purpose.

51

Status

• Committee meetings completed in October;

• Committee/staff revising final draft; • Academies peer review expected during

Jan-Feb 2017; • Completion/release of report by March

2017.

52

Impacts of CVs and AVs on State and Local Transportation Agencies NCHRP Project 20-102

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) is the Transportation Research Board’s program addressing problems faced by state and local transportation agencies. Funding for the program is provided by all of the state departments of transportation. NCHRP Project 20-102 began in December 2014 to tackle CV/AV issues and has $3.5M in funding to-date. Selection of tasks and conduct of research is being coordinated with U.S. DOT and private sector efforts. Search for NCHRP 20-102 or contact Ray Derr ([email protected]) for more information. Policy and Planning Actions to Internalize Societal Impacts of CV and AV Systems into Market Decisions (Task 1) has identified governmental actions to promote societal goals (safety, congestion, pollution, land development, mobility). Initial catalog of actions is available on TRB website. The most promising ones (e.g., subsidize CVs and shared vehicles, restructure liability & insurance, adjust land use and parking regulations, invest in CV roadside infrastructure) are being explored further to describe potential outcomes and viability. Ginger Goodin of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute is leading the research team and the final report is expected in Q1 2017. ($400,000)

Source: http://www.slideshare.net/susanshaheen/trb-2016-shared-mobiliity-trends

Source: TRB Staff

Impacts of Regulations and Policies on CV and AV Technology Introduction in Transit Operations (Task 2) is: (1) describing current transit system regulations and policies that could impact the introduction of CV/AV technologies; (2) describing regulatory and policy changes that could address obstacles; and (3) discussing the administrative implications of CV/AV technologies to transit stakeholders. Sam Lott of Kimley Horn & Associates is leading the research team and the final report is expected in Q1 2017. ($150,000)

Challenges to CV and AV Application in Truck Freight Operations (Task 3) is describing freight regulatory, planning, policy, and operational challenges and opportunities for connected and autonomous truck technologies and proposing next steps for addressing the challenges and opportunities. David Fitzpatrick of Booz-Allen Hamilton is leading the research team and the final report is expected in Q1 2017. ($150,000)

Source: www.truckinsurancenitic.com

Source: mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov

Road Markings for Machine Vision (Task 6) is developing information on the performance characteristics of longitudinal pavement markings (i.e., center lines, lane lines, edge lines, and dotted lines across freeway ramps) that affect the ability of machine vision systems to recognize them. This information is expected to be useful to the AASHTO/SAE Working Group as they develop guidelines and criteria. Paul Carlson of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute is leading the research team and the final report is expected in Q3 2017. ($200,000)

53

mailto:[email protected]

Implications of Automation for Motor Vehicle Codes (Task 7) will provide state departments of transportation and motor vehicle departments with guidance and resources to assist with the legal changes that will result from the roll out of connected and automated vehicles. The project is being coordinated with related efforts by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. Myra Blanco of the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute is leading the research team and the final report is expected in Q1 2018 ($350,000)

Source: Google Images

Source: en.wikipedia.org

Dedicating Lanes for Priority or Exclusive Use by CVs and AVs (Task 8) will identify conditions amenable to dedicated CV/AV lanes and identify obstacles to building them. Ways to measure benefits to CV/AV users and operating agencies, as well as possible dis-benefits to non-users will be described. This work will be coordinated with work underway by the Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP) on cooperative adaptive cruise control. Balaji Yelchuru of Booz-Allen Hamilton is leading the research team and the final report is expected in Q1 2018. ($350,000)

Providing Support to the Introduction of CV/AV Impacts into Regional Transportation Planning and Modeling Tools (Task 9) will provide a conceptual framework and applicable guidelines to support state DOTs and regional MPOs as they begin to incorporate CVs and AVs into their planning, modeling, and forecasting tools. Thomas Williams of Texas A&M Transportation Institute is leading the research team and the final report is expected in Q1 2018. ($300,000)

Source: www.e-education.psu.edu

Source: http://www.econolite.com

Cybersecurity Implications of CV/AV Technologies on State and Local Transportation Agencies (Task 10) will develop a primer on cybersecurity and related privacy issues. It will be combined with NCHRP 03-127 that is doing the same for traffic signals and intelligent transportation systems. A competitive request for proposals will be released in December 2016 and the final report should be in Q2 2019. ($250,000)

Other NCHRP 20-102 Tasks

• Catalog of Automated Vehicle Deployments (Task 4, $75,000) • Strategic Communications Plan for NCHRP Project 20-102 (Task 5, $100,000) • Summary of Existing Studies on the Effects of CV/AV on Travel Demand (Task 11, $100,000) • Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of CV Infrastructure to Support AV Operations (Task 12,

$400,000) • Planning Data Needs and Collection Techniques for CV/AV Applications (Task 13, $250,000) • Data Management Strategies for CV/AV Applications for Operations (Task 14, $250,000)

54

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Transportation Research Board

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine

Continuation Request Project 20-102, FY 2018

Impacts of Connected Vehicles and Automated Vehicles on State and Local Transportation Agencies

Present Expiration Date: N/A Recommended Allocation: $1,500,000 1. Anticipated Accomplishment(s) When Funds Allocated Have Been Expended NCHRP Project 20-24(98) developed a research roadmap addressing the policy, planning, and implementation issues associated with connected vehicles (CV) and automated vehicles (AV) that state and local transportation agencies will face (available at http://bit.ly/TRBCVAV). The NCHRP 20-102 Panel is responsible for deciding which tasks will be undertaken using the funds at their disposal based upon the research roadmap and developments in the public and private sectors. Tasks currently underway are listed below in Item #6. These decisions have been influenced by input from, among others:

• U.S. Department of Transportation (including ITS JPO, FHWA, and NHTSA) • Connected Vehicle Pooled Fund Study • V2I Deployment Coalition, an AASHTO led group supporting implementation of standards and

guidance for vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) technologies, including CV technologies • Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP), a group of vehicle manufacturer representatives

that collaborates on pre-competitive crash avoidance research projects of mutual interest • Various AASHTO and TRB Standing Committees • Conference of European Directors of Roads • American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators • Presentations and discussions at the 2015 & 2016 Automated Vehicle Symposia

2. Anticipated Accomplishment(s) When Funds Requested Have Been Expended The requested funds will be used to carry out additional tasks, likely drawing from the research roadmap. Due to the sizeable research need and the urgency of agencies for the results, the panel is requesting $1,500,000 rather than the $1,000,000 requested in the first two years. This is consistent with the FY 2017 request. The following tasks from the research roadmap will be considered at the panel’s meeting in July 2017:

• Harmonization of State Goals and Regulations ($500k) • Lessons Learned from Roll-Outs of Other Transportation Technologies ($250k) • Development of Tools to Predict the Impact of CV and AV Systems on Highway Operations

($3,000k) • CV/AV Applications for State and Local Maintenance Vehicle Fleets ($100k) • Implications of CV and AV Technologies for Federal-State-Local Boundaries of Responsibility

($250k) • Roadway Infrastructure Design Considerations for Operation of Automated Vehicles ($750k)

55

http://bit.ly/TRBCVAV

• Relationships Between Connected and Automated Vehicle Systems ($250k) • Traffic Control Strategies with Consideration of Automated Vehicles ($1,500k) • Including Consideration of AV Systems in the Regional Transportation Planning Process and

Tools ($1,500k) [partially underway as NCHRP 20-102(09)]

3. Funds (in thousands) FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 AASHTO Initial Allocation 1,000 Continuation Allocation -0- 1,000 1,500 Less Obligation 1,000 1,000 1,250 Balance (earmarked) -0- 250* Reallocation -0- Total Available -0- -0- Recommended Addition 1,500 * will be obligated following the Nov 1, 2016 meeting of the Connected/Automated Vehicle Executive Leadership Team 4. Interpretation of AASHTO Problem Statement by Panel Connected vehicle technologies are being developed to enable safe, interoperable networked wireless communications among vehicles (V2V), the infrastructure (V2I), and travelers’ personal communication devices (V2X). These technologies are intended to reduce highway crashes; provide data for assessing the performance of the transportation system; provide continual access to accurate information on the operation of the system to travelers; and reduce unnecessary stops, delays, and emissions. Automated vehicle technologies are also under development that will significantly change fundamental planning, design, and operational characteristics for the road network. Some industry leaders expect that Level 4 vehicle automation (under NHTSA and SAE definitions) will be available on the market by 2018. Fully autonomous, driverless vehicles (SAE Level 5 automation) could be on the market by 2025. For Level 5 automation, “the vehicle is designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip.” (NHTSA, Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles) Level 4 automation is essentially the same as Level 5, without any driver supervision (e.g., there is no expectation that the driver will be engaged), over a limited driving domain. These vehicles may be safer than current models. Connected vehicles and automated vehicles are essentially different technologies, though some of the challenges they present to transportation agencies will be similar. These two technologies may converge or diverge from each other based largely on developments in the private sector (e.g., vehicle manufacturers, third-party vendors). While some actors envision a completely autonomous vehicle that does not require communication with other entities, others see serendipities between the two technologies. This project will address both technologies (including the combination) under the umbrella term of CV/AV. The individual tasks that compose the project will clearly identify which technologies are to be addressed. 5. Original AASHTO Problem Statement Number Problem No. 2015-G-30

56

6. Research Assignment to Date NCHRP Project 20-102, Impacts of Connected/Automated Vehicles on State and Local Transportation Agencies. Currently active tasks are as follows:

# Title Funds Exp. Comp.

1 Policy and Planning Actions to Internalize Societal Impacts of CV and AV Systems into Market Decisions

$400k 2017 Q1

2 Impacts of Regulations and Policies on CV and AV Technology Introduction in Transit Operations

$150k 2017 Q1

3 Challenges to CV and AV Applications in Truck Freight Operations $150k 2017 Q1 4 Catalog of AV Deployments $75k* 2017 Q4 5 Strategic Communications Plan for NCHRP 20-102 $100k 2017 Q4 6 Road Markings for Automated Vehicles $200k 2017 Q2 7 Implications of Automation for Motor Vehicle Codes $350k 2017 Q4 8 Dedicating Lanes for Priority or Exclusive Use by CVs and AVs $350k 2017 Q4 9 Providing Support to the Introduction of CV/AV Impacts into Regional

Transportation Planning and Modeling Tools $300k 2017 Q4

10 Cybersecurity Implications of CV/AV Technologies on State and Local Transportation Agencies**

$250k 2018 Q3

11 Summary of Existing Studies on the Effects of CV/AV on Travel Demand $100k 2018 Q1 12 Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of CV Infrastructure to Support AV

Operations $400k 2018 Q4

13 Planning Data Needs and Collection Techniques for CV/AV Applications $250k 2018 Q2 14 Data Management Strategies for CV/AV Applications for Operations $250k 2018 Q2 * funds from NCHRP 20-24 ** to be included in NCHRP 03-127 7. Review Dates Nov 2014, Jan 2015, Jul 2015, Jul 2016

57

TRB Partners in Research Symposium: Transformational Technologies

Sponsored by

Michigan Department of Transportation National Cooperative Highway Research Program

PLATINUM

SILVER

BRONZE

Thank you Patrons!

58

Partners in Research Symposium

• 125+ participants • Public, private, research organizations

• OEMs, shared-use, technology companies, consultants

• Keynote/plenary presentations & panels • 10 breakout sessions

59

Symposium: Leading Questions

• What are the most critical research needs for positive policy outcomes from deployment of transformational technologies?

• Which are best addressed through public/private/university partnerships?

• Given the rapidly changing terrain, can partnerships keep research needs current?

• What form may these partnerships take, and what role can TRB and others take in facilitating such partnerships?

60

Symposium Outcomes

Identified critical & urgent research needs Expressed support for

public/private/university partnerships Suggested strong TRB leadership role

61

Symposium: TRB Roles

• Serve as convener & non-partisan broker • Develop & manage a living research

roadmap • Separate research needs: long vs. short

term • Facilitate the formation of

public/private/university partnerships

62

Symposium: TRB Action Items

Share presentations & breakout summaries (done)

• Produce summary report (by January) • Solicit interest/participation in one or

more roundtables • Request NCHRP funds to bring public

agencies to the table

63

Symposium: Research Needs • Impact of Mobility-on-Demand on the

Transportation System • Addressing Social Inclusion & Equity in Shared

Mobility • Protocols for Data Sharing and Management

for Evolving Supply Chains • Framework for CV Pilot and Smart Cities Data

Analytics for Policy Guidance • Impact of Transformational Technologies on

Land Uses

64

Symposium: Research Needs (cont.)

• Effect of Traffic Applications on Traveler Behavior

• Safely Transitioning to Automated Flight Deck and Air Traffic Control

• Potential Uses of Unmanned Aerial Systems • Data Curation, Sharing, and Management • Workforce Implications of Transformational

Technologies • Alternative Scenarios for Alternative Fuels • Transformational Technologies in Dense, Built

Environments 65

SCOR Agenda Item 12 NCHRP 20-113, Research Roadmap: Transformational Technologies

(Other than CV/AV)

Background

Three NCHRP projects were funded to develop research roadmaps for critical topics. NCHRP 20-113 is addressing Transformational Technologies (other than connected vehicles and automated vehicles for which an earlier project developed a roadmap).

Recommended SCOR Actions

Consider funding the highest priority research needs as off-cycle requests;

1. Impact of Mobility-on-Demand on the Transportation System ($200-250k); 2. Framework for CV Pilot and Smart Cities Data Analytics for Policy Guidance ($400-500k); and 3. Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use ($200-250k).

Status of NCHRP 20-113

The project budget is $250,000. $100,000 was used to hire CAVita (Abbas Mohaddes and Peter Sweatman) to support the Transformational Technologies Symposium (prepare materials, identify and contact participants, moderate, and summarize). Approximately $20,000 in project funds were used for travel costs for key participants. The NCHRP funds were supplemented by the Michigan DOT ($100,000), Symposium Sponsors ($25,000), and registration fees ($20,000). The non-NCHRP funds were, among other things, used to expand the scope of the NCHRP effort to also include connected vehicles and automated vehicles.

The CAVita contract has two deliverables: (1) a catalog of the most critical and urgent research needs that would help us to achieve positive policy outcomes through deployment of transformational technologies and (2) thoughts on partnership arrangements among the private sector, public sector, and academia that could keep this catalog current.

The draft deliverables are expected during the first week of December and we intend to release a prepublication version by the TRB Annual Meeting.

Research Needs

Almost half of the symposium agenda was spent in two sets of five parallel breakout groups that identified research needs. Some of them are listed in the previous presentation. The research team and panel think that the following three are the most critical.

Impact of Mobility-on-Demand on the Transportation System. How will mobility-on-demand in all of its ramifications affect the demand for and supply of services in the transportation system? How adequate are current transportation metrics and descriptors to describe this transition? Research to include: vehicles mile traveled and induced demand & public transit, CO2/GHG, auto-ownership, occupancy, temporal and spatial scale, built environment, regulatory considerations, and implications for “legacy” infrastructure. As the shift to increased mobility-on-demand and

66

individualized mobility occurs, the research will also seek best practices to facilitate the transition. This will be a high-level framing study.

Framework for CV Pilot and Smart Cities Data Analytics for Policy Guidance. Establishing a framework where data from CV pilots and smart cities initiatives can be aggregated to provide guidance on policy. What lessons have been learned from the curation of model deployment and first-of-type data? How may such data be used to support changes to the MUTCD and operational guidance? What does the data tell us about what users expect from CV and V2I? How could such data support a policy primer for state and local decision makers? What additional data should be collected in deployments?

Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Uses. Emerging technologies have already transformed the last mile of retail and altered the demand for and characteristics of “brick and mortar” stores and distribution center buildings. The proposed research would focus on three-to-five technologies, such as autonomous vehicles, “mobility on demand,” and 3D printing and identify the range of potential impacts on land uses. Potential changes in site selection and demand for retail, office, distribution, housing, parking and production would also be identified, along with considerations for communities. The research will consider a range of settings, including urban, suburban and rural.

Research Partnerships

There was overwhelming agreement that a fixed roadmap will soon be obsolete and that ongoing partnerships among the private sector, public sector, and academia need to be established. There was also consensus that TRB would be appropriate to convene these partnerships. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have mechanisms for doing this whereby participants contribute funds to the effort and can then participate. The objective would be to facilitate the ability of the public sector to deploy these technologies in a manner and timeframe to enhance to probability that public policy objective can be achieved. The partnerships would be formed to keep the research roadmap continuously up to date, and to facilitate mechanisms and partnerships to conduct the research and to share the results to help achieve the above objective.

The project panel agrees that these relationships are important and are interested in further exploring the NASEM possibilities. If they appear to be practical, the panel has expressed willingness to use the remaining project funds ($130,000) to sponsor state DOT participation in these partnerships.

Public Sector Processes

The private sector symposium participants are skeptical of the public sector’s ability to move quickly and nimbly enough to deal with transformational technology issues. In addition to research; procurement, data sharing and integration, handling of proprietary data, and workforce processes will be stressed. In particular, participants clearly identified the need to foster agility in research so that the public sector can keep pace with technology.

67

NCHRP ACTIVE IMPLEMENTATION MOVING RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE

im·ple·men·ta·tion “A specified set of activities designed to put into practice an activity or products of known dimensions” “Implementation Science: The systematic study of specified activities designed to put into practice activities or products of known dimensions”

National Implementation Research Network (NIRN): http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/.

68

NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH NETWORK (NIRN)

• In 2005, the National Implementation Research Network released a monograph synthesizing implementation research findings across a range of fields.

• Based on these findings, NIRN developed five overarching frameworks referred to as the Active Implementation Frameworks.

• The Active Implementation Frameworks presented herein have been modified to implement research outcomes “products” instead of “interventions”. Fixsen, D., S. Naoom, K. Blase, R. Friedman, and F.

Wallace, “Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature,” University of South Florida, Tampa, 2005. HTTP://NIRN.FPG.UNC.EDU

69

ACTIVE IMPLEMENTATION

What is Active Implementation?

• The formula for success involves multiplication. If any component is weak then the intended outcomes will not be achieved, sustained, or used on a socially significant scale.

• Like a serum and a syringe, innovations are one thing and implementation is something else entirely different. Doing more research on a serum will not produce a better syringe; doing more research on an innovation will not produce better implementation methods.

Effective Products

Intended Outcomes

Effective Implementation

Enabling Contexts

70

ACTIVE IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORKS • Framework 1: Effective Products

– Well defined, effective products that are useable and implementable • Framework 2: Implementation Stages

– Development of implementation guidance specific to research results • Framework 3: Implementation Drivers

– Critical program and organizational support that is needed to implement products

• Framework 4: Implementation Teams – The group that guides and manages the implementation and scale-up

process • Framework 5: Product Feedback

– The processes that support teams and organizations efficiently to solve problems and get better

Adapted from Dean Fixsen and Karen Blase

71

FRAMEWORK 1: EFFECTIVE PRODUCTS

EFFECTIVE PRODUCT

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

72

FRAMEWORK 2: IMPLEMENTATION STAGES

73

FRAMEWORK 3: IMPLEMENTATION DRIVERS

Implementation Infrastructure

Leadership Driver

Skill development

Knowledge acquisition Facilitative

administration

Decision support data system (e.g., impact of practice)

Alignment with policies and procedures

Leadership strategies to address technical and adaption challenges

Adapted from Dean Fixsen and Karen Blase

74

INFLUENCE OF IMPLEMENTATION DRIVERS ON EFFECTIVE PRODUCT IMPLEMENTATION

Leadership Driver

Organization Driver

Competency Driver

Effective Product

Possible Implementation

Outcome

Generally Enabling

Strong Strong Strong High Weak Weak Low

Weak Strong Strong Medium Weak Weak Low

Generally Hindering

Strong Strong Strong Medium Weak Weak Low

Weak Strong Strong Low Weak Weak N/A

75

FRAMEWORK 4: IMPLEMENTATION TEAMS

Implementation Teams could be: • Developers and purveyors of a product. • Intermediary organizations that help

others implement a variety of products. • Agency staff with support from groups

outside the organization or system.

76

FRAMEWORK 4: IMPLEMENTATION TEAMS

Collective Impact with Collaborative Action

https://www.santafecf.org/birth-to-career

77

FRAMEWORK 5: PRODUCT FEEDBACK

• Product feedback supports the purposeful process of change.

• Implementation teams use product feedback to maintain and improve products

• Measure product impact on practice and find the return of investment

78

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS FLOW • Technology transfer—a communications process through

which the results of scientific research are put into use; often including implementation strategies and activities

• Adoption—a decision to use an innovation (e.g., AASHTO Ballot Items and adoption of specifications)

• Implementation—putting an innovation to use

Technology Transfer

“Helping it happen”

Adoption “Letting it happen”

Implementation “Making it happen”

Rogers, E., M., Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., 2003

79

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER—IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

Technology Transfer

Knowledge Transfer

Training and Education

Demonstrations and Showcases

Communications and Marketing

Efforts

Technical Assistance

Complex Process of Change

Dealing with Cultural Issues

Dealing with Technical Issues

80

IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES

Ad hoc Implementation • Cumbersome or variable

activities • Lack of funding and

expertise • Champions • Incremental change or no

impact

Systematic Active Implementation • Implementation

infrastructure within the DOTs (policy, guidance, training, etc.)

• Dedicated funding and expertise (e.g., NCHRP 20-44, SHRP2, FHWA Every Day Counts)

• Implementation team • Accelerating implementation

81

NCHRP IMPLEMENTATION TEAMS Implementation

Frameworks Exploration Stage

Product Development

Stage

Initial Implementation

Stage

Full Implementation Stage

Effective Product

Problem statement

submitters, TRB RAC, SCOR,

FHWA, NCHRP STAFF

Panel Members NCHRP

Research Team FHWA

AASHTO TCs

NCHRP Research Team

FHWA AASHTO TCs

DOTs AASHTO FHWA

Impl

emen

tatio

n Dr

iver

s Competency Problem

statement submitters, SCOR

Research Team NCHRP

AASHTO TCs FHWA, NCHRP

DOTs

Organization

Problem statement submitters,

SCOR

Research Team NCHRP

AASHTO TCs FHWA,NCHRP

DOTs

Leadership Problem

statement submitters, SCOR

Research Team NCHRP

AASHTO TCs FHWA

DOTs

Product Feedback N/A N/A NCHRP DOTs, NCHRP

82

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER—EXAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY EVALUATION

Strategy Activities (Actions)

Potential User

Potential for Use for different implementation stage

Needed Recourses

Dealing with Technical Issues

Workshop for AASHTO committees

AASHTO to ballot the product for adoption

Could be used at initial and full implementation stages

• Requested funding

• AASHTO member info

• Recording the workshop

Demonstrations and Showcases

Pilot Study for 2 DOTs

Other DOTs At initial and full implementation stages

Sponsoring DOTs, Travel, Training Material Development

83

NEED HELP?

Waseem Dekelbab, PhD, PE, PMP NCHRP Implementation Coordinator 202-334-1409 [email protected] Transportation Research Board The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

84


Exploration Stage Product Development Stage Initial Implementation Stage Full Implementation Stage

NCHRP ACTIVE IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORKS AND PROCESSES Waseem Dekelbab | September 22, 2016

FHWA, RAC, and SCOR review

problem statements

Problem statements are developed by:

TRB, FHWA, DOTs, AASHTO, Academia,

and Consultants

Problem statements are submitted to

NCHRP by: AASHTO, DOTs, and FHWA

Panel Formulation

RFP, and awarding a

contract

Conduct Research

Implementation Team

evaluates product

NCHRP Program

Product Development

Is it "Effective Product"?

Document the Lessons Learned

Is product selected for

implementation?

Work with AASHTO TCs to implement

RAC ranks products for

implementation considering

Implementation Drivers

Implementation Team including Lead States develops Technology

Transfer (T2) Plan

YES

Consider supplemental

products, further research, etc.

Request funding to execute the T2 Plan and implement at the "Lead

States"

Prepare Ballot Item for AASHTO Adoption

Build Momentum and reach out to

"Early majority adopters"

Product Feedback

Product is implemented and used

as intended

YES

YES

Is it an AASHTO Product?

YES

YESNO

NO

Active Implementation

Frameworks

End of a Stage and move to next stage

MilestoneTerminate

Implementation

SCOR selects problem statements

that fit the needs and are implementable

NO

85

Product Development Stage

Project Implementation team and panel evaluate product according to recommended Table 1; is the product

implementable (i.e., Score ≥15)?

NO* YES

Is it an AASHTO Product?

Yes

Conduct a review meeting with AASHTO TC, Panel, and RT to address

any issues amd ensure that the product is implementable by AASHTO

Based on the review meeting, is the product

implementable?

YES

RT Prepares Ballot Item for AASHTO Adoption and answers any questions from the states during the Ballot Item review

NCHRP Monitors Results

NO*

NO

SPO sends product evaluation to NCHRP Implementation Coordinator

RAC ranks implementable product using recommended Table 2 and sets prioity for product implementation

including lead state(s)

Is product selected by RAC for Implementation?

Yes

Implementation Team develops implementation Plan

Implementation Team requests funding to implement a product

Implementation team executes the implementation plan

NO*

*Document the lessons learned, consider supplemental products, further research, etc.

86

RAC Product Rating sheet for NCHRP Project XX-XX Name: State: Final Score: (up to 25) Lead state (Yes or No) Project # NCHRP xx-xx , FY xx, Completion date: xx/xx/xx Research Objective(s)

Developed Product(s)

Product Description

Essential Functions

Operational Requirements

Performance Assessment

Table 1: Summary of NCHRP Panel/Implementation Team Evaluation

(5 Point Rating Scale: 5=High and 1=Low) Score

“Need”: Did this product meet the panel’s expectations? “Readiness”: Is the product fully developed and ready to implement? “Resource Availability” and “Fit”: Do you expect that implementation of the product will be relatively straight-forward (e.g., training, existing policy, state priorities)?

“Evidence”: Was there evidence of positive results during the project through field testing or simulation?

“Return on Investment”: Do you anticipate the product will yield significant benefits compared to the costs of implementing it?

Total Score ≤ 25

87

Table 2: RAC Product Rating (5 Point Rating Scale: 5=High and 1=Low) Optional question: identify factors which may facilitate or impede implementation of this product

Questions: Score Facilitate Impede

Does this product address an identified need in your agency?

Do you think your current organizational structure would be suitable for implementation of the product?

Do you believe your agency has the necessary skills and resources to implement this product or training is needed?

Has your organization supported adopting similar new methods, materials, or technologies before?

Would you be willing to test this product in your DOT as a lead state?

Total: ≤ 25

88

11/11/2016 Transportation Research Board Homepage

http://intranet.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplayAdmin.asp?ProjectID=4153 1/3

About TRB Annual Meeting Calendar Committees & Panels News Programs Publications Resources & Databases Contact TRB Search TRB

PREVIEW RFP

NCHRP 20114 [RFP]

Multimodal Freight Transportation Research Roadmap

Posted Date: 10/10/2016

Project DataFunds: $250,000Contract Time: 12 months(includes 1 month for NCHRP review and approval of the interim report and 3 months for NCHRP review and forcontractor revision of the final report)

Authorization to Begin Work: 4/15/2017 estimatedStaff Responsibility: William C. Rogers

Phone: 202/3341621 Email: [email protected]

RFP Close Date: 12/8/2016Fiscal Year: 2017

BACKGROUND As outlined in the U.S. DOT’s 30year plan, Beyond Traffic, the nation’s ability to compete in global markets and to meet the needsand expectations of consumers and industry depends on a robust multimodal freight transportation system and agile and efficientsupply chains. Rural communities, cities, and metropolitan areas rely on supply chains, and the supporting freight transportationsystems, to send and receive vast amount of supplies needed by local economies. For example, freightintensivesectors (e.g.,manufacturing, wholesale, retail, food, accommodation) – for which the production and/or consumption of supplies are an essentialpart of their business – represent 45% of the establishments and 50% of the employment in the United States. Inefficient supplychains will have a negative effect on all of them, hampering economic activity. Furthermore, the freight system is under serious strain,with roads, railways, and airports becoming increasingly congested and increasingly aging. Market and technological trends are impacting freight activity patterns in numerous ways, both globally and locally. International tradeis increasing, global manufacturing centers are shifting, and trade routes are changing. Firms are driving down logistics costs throughjustintime shipping. Online shopping is increasing demand for home delivery of consumer products, especially in dense urbanenvironments. Retailers, faced with new mobile computing consumer buying behavior, are experimenting with a wide range of newtransportation options for last mile delivery. Intermodal freight shipped in containers via ships, trains, and trucks is continuing to grow.Surging domestic energy production is straining infrastructure in oil production regions. In the next 30 years, changes in freightdemand, shipping, manufacturing, logistics, technology, and energy production are poised to transform the economics oftransportation yet again. By 2045, freight volume will increase 45% from current levels. The increasing congestion in metropolitan areas is a major threat to the U.S. economy. About 80% of the freight transported in theU.S. has its origin or destination at one of the top 100 metropolitan areas, reflecting that the bulk of manufacturing is produced inmetropolitan areas, and in turn, increases congestion and emissions in these areas. Taking into account the surge in Internet orders inthe last several years, it is almost certain that deliveries to households now generate more freight trips than deliveries to commercialestablishments. At the same time, a host of new technologies and operational practices are transforming freight transportation systems and supplychains. Smart City technologies, truck platooning, autonomous trucks, drones, 3D printing, delivery crowdsourcing, and others arealready making their mark. As an example, 3D printing may lead to decentralization of manufacturing and to the development of ondemand manufacturing, resulting in unforeseen demands on road infrastructure because of the growth in small truck freight tripgeneration. There is a need to better understand the current and anticipated future freight trends to provide transportation agencies with theinformation they need to develop strategic plans. More specifically, research is needed to gain insight into how market andtechnological trends could impact transportation systems, safety, and the environment. Conducting research, with the collaboration ofother stakeholders, that identifies, designs, pilot tests, and leads to the adoption of effective public sector freight initiatives, will helptransportation agencies achieve their goals. OBJECTIVE The objective of this project is to develop a dynamic 5 to 10year multimodal freight research roadmap. The roadmap shouldemphasize problem statements with a scope and budget appropriate for NCHRP, but can include problem statements that are moresuitable for other public, private, or academic research institutions or programs. The research roadmap should clearly define aportfolio of initiatives that will advance the knowledge and capabilities of transportation decision makers. The research roadmapshould include, but not be limited to: (1) endtoend emphasis (i.e., consider the research needs of all modes and stages of freightactivity, from gateways, to corridors, to local deliveries); (2) identifying and assessing the impacts of social, technological, economic,environmental, and political trends on freight transportation systems and policies; (3) enhancing public sector decisionmakingcapabilities (i.e., the research roadmap should lead to the development of new tools or methods and ways to gather necessary datafor public agencies to make decisions that improve freight system performance); (4) expanding and deepening public sector

89

http://intranet.trb.org/default.asp

http://intranet.trb.org/Search.asp




knowledge (i.e., the research roadmap should contain projects that enhance the public sector’s understanding of the behavior of theagents involved in freight, and the best ways to influence them to improve freight system performance); and (5) addressing institutionalissues (i.e., analyzing current and potential barriers to preventing improved freight transportation systems that could increaseeconomic efficiency and productivity, foster sustainability, enhance livability, quality of life, and environmental justice). The research roadmap should include: (1) a prioritized portfolio of problem statements, most of which should address the researchgaps in a format and at a level of detail suitable for submission to NCHRP; (2) a detailed description and justification of how thisportfolio addresses the five objective criteria; (3) an assessment of key gaps and needs that could be addressed through research andhow this portfolio addresses these gaps; and (4) a dynamic communications concept (including format, platform, frequency,distribution channels, budget, and editorial and technical content) that could be widely distributed to keep practitioners informed ofemerging issues affecting freight transportation. Problem statements should be in a format and level of detail similar to those presented in NCHRP 2024(98), Connected/AutomatedVehicle Research Roadmap for AASHTO, Deliverable 2, Connected/Automated Vehicle Research Roadmap;and NCFRP48: Freight Research to Support MAP21 Implementation, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ncfrp/docs/NCFRP48_FR.pdf. RESEARCH APPROACH The NCHRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objectives. Proposers are expected to describeresearch plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and contract time. Proposals mustpresent the proposers’ current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of theirapproach to meeting the research objective. A kickoff teleconference of the research team and NCHRP shall be scheduled within 1 month of the contract’s execution. The workplan must be divided into tasks, with each task described in detail. There must be an interim report that provides a list of the proposedprioritized portfolio problem statements, a detailed description and justification of how this portfolio addresses the five objectivecriteria, and an assessment of key gaps and needs that could be addresses through research and how the portfolio addresses thesegaps. There must be a facetoface meeting with NCHRP to discuss the interim report and the plan for developing the detailedprioritized portfolio of problem statements. No work shall be performed on the remaining tasks without NCHRP approval. The final deliverables shall include (1) the roadmap for future NCHRP multimodal freight research projects; (2) the dynamiccommunications concept (including format, platform, frequency, distribution channels, budget, and editorial and technical content) thatcould be widely distributed to keep practitioners informed of emerging issues affecting freight transportation; (3) a final reportdocumenting the entire project, incorporating all other specified deliverables of the research; (4) a standalone executive summary thatsummarizes the research results; (5) an electronic presentation of the roadmap that can be tailored for specific audiences; and (6) astandalone technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note C for additionalinformation). Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, the remaining 3 months shall be for NCHRP review and comment and forresearch agency preparation of the final deliverables. SPECIAL NOTES A. Proposals should include a taskbytask breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in Figure 4 in the brochure,"Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals" (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/crp/docs/ProposalPrep.pdf). Proposals also shouldinclude a breakdown of all costs (e.g., wages, indirect costs, travel, materials, and total) for each task using Figures 5 and 6 in thebrochure. Please note that TRB Cooperative Research Program subawards (selected proposers are considered subawards to theNational Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB) must comply with 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements,Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. These requirements include a provision that proposers without a"federally" Negotiated Indirect Costs Rate Agreement (NICRA) shall be subject to a maximum allowable indirect rate of 10% ofModified Total Direct Costs. Modified Total Direct Costs include all salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials andsupplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each lowertier subaward and subcontract. Modified Total Direct Costs excludeequipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participantsupport costs and the portion of each lowertier subaward and subcontract in excess of $25,000. B. The NCHRP is a practical, applied research program that produces implementable products addressing problems faced bytransportation practitioners and managers. The benefits of NCHRP research are realized only when the results are implemented instate DOTs and other agencies. Implementation of the research product must be considered throughout the process, from problemstatement development to research contract and beyond completion of the research. Item 4(c), "Anticipated Research Results," mustinclude the following: (a) the "product" expected from the research, (b) the audience or "market" for this product, (c) a realisticassessment of impediments to successful implementation, and (d) the institutions and individuals who might take leadership indeploying the research product. The project panel will develop and maintain an implementation plan throughout the life of the project.The research team will be expected to provide input to an implementation team consisting of panel members, AASHTO committeemembers, the NCHRP Implementation Coordinator, and others in order to meet the goals of NCHRP Active Implementation: MovingResearch into Practice, available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP_ActiveImplementation.pdf. C. Item 5 in the proposal, "Qualifications of the Research Team," must include a section labeled "Disclosure." Information relevant tothe NCHRP's need to ensure objectivity and to be aware of possible sources of significant financial or organizational conflict of interestin conducting the research must be presented in this section of the proposal. For example, under certain conditions, ownership of theproposing agency, other organizational relationships, or proprietary rights and interests could be perceived as jeopardizing anobjective approach to the research effort, and proposers are asked to disclose any such circumstances and to explain how they will beaccounted for in this study. If there are no issues related to objectivity, this should be stated. D. Proposals are evaluated by the NCHRP staff and project panels consisting of individuals collectively very knowledgeable in theproblem area. Selection of an agency is made by the project panel considering the following factors: (1) the proposer's demonstrated

90

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-24(98)_RoadmapTopics_Final.pdf

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ncfrp/docs/NCFRP-48_FR.pdf

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/crp/docs/ProposalPrep.pdf

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP_ActiveImplementation.pdf



understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experiment design; (3) the experience,qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the plan for ensuring application ofresults; (5) the proposer's plan for participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprisessmall firms owned and controlled byminorities or women; and (6) the adequacy of the facilities. Note: The proposer's plan for participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises should be incorporated in Item 12 of theproposal. E. Copyrights All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and photographic images, and other information prepared underthe contract and the copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Thecontractor and subcontractors will be able to publish this material for noncommercial purposes, for internal use, or to further academicresearch or studies with permission from TRB Cooperative Research Programs. The contractor and subcontractors will not be allowedto sell the project material without prior approval by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. By signing acontract with the National Academy of Sciences, contractors accept legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist inwork done for TRB. Contractors are therefore responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions for use of copyrighted material inTRB's Cooperative Research Programs publications. For guidance on TRB's policies on using copyrighted material please consultSection 5.4, "Use of Copyrighted Material," in the Procedural Manual for Contractors. F. The research plan shall be limited to no more than 25 pages. This does not include the detailed budget or schedule. Resumes forkey personnel shall be limited to 3 pages each.

Proposals (12 singlebound copies) are due not later than 4:30 p.m. on 12/8/2016.

This is a firm deadline, and extensions are not granted. In order to be considered for award, all copies of the agency's proposal accompanied by the executed,unmodified Liability Statement must be in our offices not later than the deadline shown, or the proposal will be rejected. Proposers may choose any carrier or deliveryservice for their proposals. However, proposers assume the risk of proposal rejection if the carrier or delivery service does not deliver all the required documents by thedeadline.

Delivery Address:

PROPOSALNCHRPATTN: Christopher J. HedgesDirector, Cooperative Research ProgramsTransportation Research Board500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001

Liability Statement

The signature of an authorized representative of the proposing agency is required on the unaltered liability statement in order for theNCHRP to accept the agency's proposal for consideration. Proposals submitted without this executed and unaltered statement bythe proposal deadline will be summarily rejected. An executed, unaltered statement indicates the agency's intent and ability toexecute a contract that includes the provisions in the statement.

Here is a printable version of the Liability Statement (pdf). A free copy of the Adobe Acrobat PDF reader is available athttp://www.adobe.com.

General Notes

1. According to the provisions of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, which relates to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs, all partiesare hereby notified that the contract entered into pursuant to this announcement will be awarded without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion,sex, national origin, or disability.

2. The essential features required in a proposal for research are detailed in the current brochure entitled "Information and Instructions for PreparingProposals" (updated August 2016). Proposals must be prepared according to this document, and attention is directed specifically to Section V formandatory requirements. Proposals that do not conform with these requirements will be rejected. This brochure is available here.

3. The total funds available are made known in the project statement, and line items of the budget are examined to determine the reasonableness of theallocation of funds to the various tasks. If the proposed total cost exceeds the funds available, the proposal is rejected.

4. All proposals become the property of the Transportation Research Board. Final disposition will be made according to the policies thereof, including the rightto reject all proposals.

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Potential proposers should understand clearly that the research project described herein is tentative. The final content of the programdepends on the level of funding made available through States' agreements for financial support of the NCHRP. Nevertheless, to beprepared to execute research contracts as soon as possible after sponsors' approvals, the NCHRP is assuming that the tentativeprogram will become official in its entirety and is proceeding with requests for proposals and selections of research agencies.

To create a link to this page, use this URL: http://intranet.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplayAdmin.asp?ProjectID=4153

Copyright © 2016. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

91

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/crp/docs/liability.pdf

http://www.adobe.com/

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/crp/docs/proposalprep.pdf

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/crp/docs/proposalprep.pdf

http://intranet.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplayAdmin.asp?ProjectID=4153

http://www.nationalacademies.org/legal/

http://www.nationalacademies.org/

NCHRP 20-114, Multimodal Freight Transportation Research Roadmap Project Panel

Chair Jose Holguin-Veras, PhD, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Jose is the Director of the Center for Infrastructure, Transportation, and the Environment at RPI. He has been the PI on numerous NCFRP and NCHRP freight research projects and is recognized as a world leader in freight transportation research. He received the 2013 White House Transportation Champion of Change Award from President Obama.

State DOT Members Kome Ajise, Chief Deputy Director, California DOT

Kome has been with the California DOT since 1989, and has served as the program manager for public private partnerships, director of District 10, and chief of the District 3 North Region Environmental Division. Among his current duties is chair of the California Freight Advisory Committee. Kome has a Master of City and Regional Planning degree.

Anne Ellis, PhD, Assistant Deputy Director, Arizona DOT

Anne has been with the Arizona DOT since 2009, and served as the research director and managed a $10 million research portfolio. She also led the Western Corridor Coalition to demonstrate ITS on the I-10 corridor in a PPP effort among the four southern border states from California to Texas. She is currently a Transportation Management Fellow at AASHTO on a one-year assignment.

William Gardner, Director, Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicles, Minnesota DOT

Bill has been with the Minnesota DOT since 2000, and previously served as the planning director for advanced transportation systems, director of the freight planning and development unit, and the director of the freight, rail, and waterways section. He has served on numerous NCFRP and NCHRP research project panels. Bill has a Master of Regional Planning degree.

Nicole Katsikides, Deputy Director, Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, Maryland State Highway Administration, PhD (all but dissertation)

Prior to assuming her current position in 2016, Nicole was the freight performance manager in the Office of Freight Management, FHWA, as well as positions in the Maryland Department of Transportation as director of the Office of Freight and Multi-modalism. She has served as the DOT Liaison on numerous NCFRP and NCHRP project panels.

Caroline Mays, Director, Freight and International Trade Section, Texas DOT

Caroline has been with the Texas DOT since 2012, and is currently responsible for developing and directing all aspects of multimodal freight planning and operations, as well as information related to international trade and relations activities. Among her prior positions was the principal transportation planner for the Atlanta Regional Commission. She has served on numerous NCFRP and NCHRP project panels. Caroline has a Master of Science in Planning degree.

92

Lynn Soporowski, P.E., Transportation Engineering Branch Manager, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

Lynn has been with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet since 2005, and is currently responsible for traffic forecasting, air quality conformity, freight planning and coordination of road, rail, and river transportation, and congestion/reliability performance measures. Among her prior positions was the transportation engineering branch manager for the Frankfort, KY, MPO. Lynn has served on numerous NCFRP and NCHRP project panels. She has a Master of Science in Civil Engineering degree.

Metropolitan Planning Organization Christina Casgar, Goods Movement Coordinator, San Diego Association of Governments

Christina has been with SANDAG since 2007, and is currently for freight policy, sustainable goods movement, truck managed lanes and land border/corridor infrastructure improvements. Among her prior positions was the freight multimodal specialist in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. DOT. She has a Master in Maritime Policy degree.

University Christopher Caplice, Ph.D., Executive Director, Center for Transportation and Logistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Chris has been at MIT since 2003, where he manages a $12 million in annual research projects, as well as the Supply Chain Exchange, which has more than 50 corporate sponsors. He also manages Global Supply Chain and Logistics Excellence Centers in Luxembourg, Zaragoza, Spain, Bogota, Colombia, Ningbo, China, and Shah Alam, Malaysia. He was the PI for NCHRP 20-81(01), Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 1: Scenario Planning for Freight Transportation Infrastructure, NCHRP Report 750 Investment. Chris has a Doctor in Transportation and Logistics Systems degree.

Other Paul Gavin, Transportation Specialist, FHWA

Paul has started in 2016 as a transportation specialist in the Office of Freight Management. Prior to that, he was a transportation specialist in the New York DOT from 2000 until 2016. Paul has a MBA in Finance and Accounting.

93

NCHRP Project 20-112, FY2017 Problem Statement: A Research Roadmap for Transportation and Public Health Funds Available: $250,000 1st Panel Meeting: December 20-21, 2016 Staff Responsibility: Ms. Lori Sundstrom 2nd Panel Meeting: Early March, 2017 [email protected] Notice to Proceed: June, 2017

202-334-3034 Background: There is a need to understand the complex relationships between transportation and public health, to provide transportation agencies with the information they need to develop strategic goals and objectives by analyzing the current issues and state of knowledge, identifying gaps and needs, and outlining a program of research to address those gaps and needs. Objective: To develop a research roadmap for the intersection of transportation and public health. A research roadmap is a type of strategic plan that outlines the key issues in an area, identifies research gaps that constrain effective decision-making, and outlines specific research projects needed to address these gaps. They are particularly valuable for new and emerging trends where we do not have a great deal of experience or study. Research roadmaps are a very effective way of planning for the future in areas where attitudes, conditions, or technologies are developing rapidly. Research Plan: It is expected that the contractor selected for this work will achieve the project objective through a combination of activities such as literature reviews, surveys, targeted interviews, workshops, focus groups, and analysis. Deliverables may include:

1. A summary of the current state of knowledge and practice in the topic area 2. An assessment of how transportation agencies have been impacted, and are likely to be

impacted, by developments in public health over the coming years. 3. An assessment of key gaps and needs that could be addressed through research. 4. Problem statements addressing the research gaps in a format and at a level of detail suitable for

submission to the NCHRP. 5. A final report documenting the entire research effort. 6. A PowerPoint presentation on the methodology and findings of the report. 7. Presentations to a maximum of three meetings of key officials and decision-makers on the

results of the report.

94


NCHRP 20-112, A Research Roadmap for Transportation and Public Health Project Panel

Chair: Marilee Mortensen, Caltrans

Marilee is a state DOT leader in the issue of Health Impact Assessments and is involved in Caltrans’ partnership with the California Department of Public Health on integrating health perspectives into Caltran’s policies and planning practices. Marilee has a BS.

Other state DOTs

Casey Langford, TN DOT

Casey was the project manager on a pilot project to test FHWA’s framework to address public health in transportation corridor planning. Casey is also a member of the TRB Health and Transportation Subcommittee. Casey holds a PhD in Civil Engineering, and an MS and a BS in Civil and Environmental Engineering.

Eileen Gunn, MA DOT

Eileen is Mass DOT’s co-lead on the state’s Healthy Transportation Compact with Massachusetts’ public health agency and other partners to establish a “healthy transportation policy”. She manages Mass DOT’s Complete Streets Program.

Katie Caskey, MN DOT

Katie is MN DOT’s manager of statewide multimodal planning, and their recently completed plan includes public health considerations developed collaboratively with the MN Department of Health.

Metropolitan Planning Organization

Sandy Wesch, North Central Texas Council of Governments (Dallas)

Sandy developed the Health Section of NCTCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan for the Dallas Fort Worth area and was nominated by Jackie Ploch from TX DOT. MPOs are critical planning partners to state DOTs. Sandy is a PE.

Public Health Members

Andrew Dannenberg, Affiliate Professor, University of Washington’s Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences

Andy is a medical doctor. Prior to the U. of WA, he was with the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health. Andy was a major contributor to the Sept-Oct 2015 TRNews theme edition on Public Health and Transportation. Andy is a member of the TRB Task Force on Arterials and Public Health. Andrew also holds an MPH in Epidemiology and an AB in Biology.

Bethany Rogerson, Manager, Health Impact Project, Pew Charitable Trusts

95

Bethany is managing a national initiative to reduce health inequities and improve health though the use of health impact assessments. Bethany holds an MS in Social Policy and a BA in Environmental Studies.

Leslie Meehan, Director of Primary Prevention Initiative, TN Department of Health

Leslie was invited to speak with the TRB executive committee recently on the intersection of public health and transportation. At TDH she is involved with prevention policies. Before joining the TDH, Leslie worked for the Nashville MPO and managed MPO”s involvement in TN DOT’s pilot project with FHWA to include public health considerations in corridor planning. Leslie is a member of the TRB Task Force on Arterials and Public Health.

Others Jana Lynott, Sr. Strategic Policy Advisor, AARP Public Policy Institute

Jana is AARP’s policy lead on livable communities and advisor to AARP’s Age-Friendly Communities initiative which is an affiliated program of the World Health Organization. She participated in TRB and the National Academy of Medicine’s 2015 joint conference, Moving Active Transportation to a Higher Ground. Jana holds a Master of Planning, and Urban and Environmental Planning, and a BA in Global Studies and International Development.

Jason Broehm, Transportation Analyst, US DOT Office of the Secretary

Jason works on public health and transportation policy issues, and came to USDOT from the Centers for Disease Control. Jason has a Master of Urban Planning degree, an MS in Land Management, a JD and a BA in Political Science.

Carolyn McAndrews, Assistant Professor, University of Colorado College of Architecture and Planning

Carolyn’s research agenda focuses on how planning and policy communities bring health, safety, and environmental considerations into transportation and land use decisionmaking and design. She is a member of TRB’s Standing Committee on Social and Economic Factors of Transportation and the Task Force on Arterials and Public Health. She holds a PhD in City and Regional Planning, an MS in Civil and Environmental Engineering, and a BA in Economics.

96

Ahead of the Curve: Mastering the Management of Transportation Research

TRB Subcommittee ABG05T

Program Goal Develop a continuing training program that enhances the knowledge and skills of those managing transportation research and innovation programs. Program Objectives

*A TRB certificate acknowledging this accomplishment is awarded for successful completion of all courses. Training Program Curriculum

• Introductory course • Four core courses

o Making Research Relevant o Running the Program (Mechanics focus) o Delivering the Program (Outcomes focus) o Program Quality Improvement

• 12 elective courses (four required) o Pending development o Range from intellectual property to research funding to understanding scientific methods

Development Status

1. Pilots completed: (a) introductory course: July 2015; (b) first core course: July 2016. 2. Pilot pending: second core course (January 2017; TRB Annual Meeting). 3. Materials due December 2016: third and fourth courses; pilot plans pending. 4. TBD: interest in developing remaining elective courses. 5. TBD: home site for training program (e.g. NHI).

High Quality •Ensure high quality research programs and projects that contribute to meeting organizational goals

Value •Better communicate the value of research and results to others

Stature •Raise the stature of transportation research and research management

Community •Provide a community and sense of belonging to a profession

97

RAC Update at December 2016 SCOR meeting

11/21/2016

R1 - Most of the past year, Region 1 was focused on planning the National RAC meeting in Providence, RI.

Seven (7) new RAC members

Research Manuals Updated: ConnDOT, MassDOT, NHDOT

Peer Exchanges: NYDOT, VTRANS, NHDOT, NJDOT

R2 – One new RAC member

Planning 2017 RAC/TRB State Reps Summer meeting – Louisville, KY

Excellent progress of the STC sponsored pooled-fund project on determining the value of research.

R3 – Two new RAC members

47 HVR submittals from Region 3!!! - Awesome!

Active Participation on all TFs

Share important projects during bi-monthly calls.

Coordinate voting support for NCHRP problem statements amongst R3 interest.

R4 – Seven new RAC members

Possible RAC4 pooled fund/consortium similar to STC in RAC2

Monthly meeting sharing of best practices & collaboration

o States’ experiences implementing the Federal research grant programs (SHRP2 and AID)

o RAC4 collaboration on NCHRP problem statement voting o High Value Research coordination o Overview of state research programs o Marketing of the research program o Successful implementation of research results

Administration Task Force

• Website Working Group – This group continues to hold monthly conference calls focused on updating/improving the SCOR/RAC website. Maina Tran, TRB, sends out regular emails to let RAC members know what’s new on the site. This includes recent survey results and new content on specific pages.

• RAC Operating Guidelines – This document was updated to reflect how RAC currently operates and posted on the SCOR/RAC website in June.

• Your Role in RAC: A Foundation for Best Practices – The Task Force coordinated this session for the 3rd year in a row at the RAC Annual Meeting in July.

98


11/21/2016

This year the discussion focused on 2 CFR300 (Supercircular), planning conducting, and implementing Peer Exchanges, and the RAC mentoring program.

• Guidance on Hosting the National RAC Meeting – The Task Force is working on an updated version of this document. The goal is to post the new document on the SCOR/RAC website in early 2017 so that it’s available to help the host state for future National RAC meetings.

• RAC 101 PowerPoint - The Task Force is updating the presentation and hopes to post it on the SCOR/RAC website in January 2017. While RAC no longer hosts a RAC 101 session during its annual meeting, new members are encouraged to review the information and it is used in the RAC mentoring program.

• RAC Winter Meeting Agenda - The Task force solicited input on the agenda from RAC for the meeting in January. The next step is to work with RAC leadership to finalize the agenda by the RAC Leadership Board call in December.

Coordination & Collaboration Task Force

RPPM (http://rppm.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx) a. Reviewing meta data and content b. Push out; market

Unfunded Research Needs Statements Portal (https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=006511338351663161139:vblegi9v2au&hl=en) a. Need to add more content b. Push out; market

Funding Guidebook (http://www.trb.org/ResearchFunding/ResearchFunding.aspx) a. Continual maintenance b. Continual marketing

Transportation Resources Webinar

Note: The RAC Task Force on coordination and collaboration in transportation research is working with the Transportation Research Board's (TRB's) Conduct of Research (COR) coordination and collaboration committee to achieve similar outcomes with a broader reach than either committee alone.

Program Management & Quality Task Force

1. Task Force is assisting on the server migration for the Pooled Fund and the High Value Research websites.

2. Ryan Culton and Hafiz Munir are writing a paper on Implementation for publishing in TR News.

3. David Jared is working on an article for Public Roads magazine on what SCOR and RAC are doing to move research into practice.

4. The Task Force facilitated the development of NCHRP Report 799 - Management Guide to Intellectual Property for State Departments of Transportation. They also helped with the creation of an associated webinar.

5. David Jared is guiding the effort to review and document best practices for peer exchanges.

99

http://rppm.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx

https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=006511338351663161139:vblegi9v2au&hl=en

http://www.trb.org/ResearchFunding/ResearchFunding.aspx

http://www.trb.org/

http://sites.google.com/site/conductofresearchcommittee/home


11/21/2016

PM & Q has Implementation subgroup working on following SCOR Strategic Plan areas:

• Develop strategies and guidance for the efficient and effective implementation of research results.

• Develop mechanisms to track the impacts and benefits of completed research. • Review research agendas and activities to support deployment and implementation

of new technologies and innovations. • Put an increased focus on the development and implementation of products and

strategies to facilitate deployment of NCHRP results.

Transportation Knowledge Networks Task Force

Focusing on AASHTO e-publications, working with AASHTO’s Erin Grady and others to develop Powerpoint to guide state DOT’s.

Value of Research Task Force

• Managed and compiled High Value Research projects: Full compilation and Research Makes the Difference Brochures available on SCOR/RAC website.

• Prepared Supplemental Brochure • Organizing 2017 TRB Poster Sessions featuring Sweet 16 and supplemental projects • Link to Research Makes the Difference brochures:

http://research.transportation.org/Pages/ResearchMakestheDifference.aspx

100

http://research.transportation.org/Pages/ResearchMakestheDifference.aspx

NCHRP PROJECT XXX, FY 2016 BEST PRACTICES FOR STATE DOT RESEARCH OFFICE’s COMPLYING

WITH 2 CFR 200 RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) streamlined the Federal government’s guidance on Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal awards by creating the Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR 200. The goal of the reform was to (1) streamline guidance for Federal awards to ease administrative burden and (2) strengthen oversight over Federal funds to reduce risks of waste, fraud, and abuse. These regulations came into effect on December 26, 2014. The Federal Highway Administration issued guidance on significant changes in the various sections of the Uniform Guidance affecting FHWA business processes. In 2014, six State Transportation Research Departments participated in a FHWA National Process Review on Subpart B of State Planning and Research (SPR), specifically seeking to discover how they were complying with requirements of 23 CFR 420. Among the observations cited by the National Process Review Team, there was no uniform metrics for successful implementation of state DOT research programs and general grant administrative procedures. Additionally New Jersey not originally selected to be among the six states, was subject to an additional individual National Process Review. The Process Review Team recommended development of processes for monitoring federal funds extending beyond the work program time frame; implementation of processes that allow follow up on audit findings; documentation of monitoring procedures; and review of department practices related to federal procurement law. It is expected that each State Research Department developed their own individual procedures for compliance, but no national discussion of best practices were developed. Subsequent to the Process Reviews and the release of the Uniform Guidance state transportation agencies are expected to revise their processes accordingly to ensure compliance. Recently the New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT) convened a Research Peer Exchange to discuss the transition from 49 CFR 18 and 19 to 2 CFR 200. At the meeting, it was recognized that there is a national need to create joint FHWA and AASHTO guidance to help the State Research Offices comply with 2 CFR 200. The group recommended that a NCHRP special study be commissioned to develop concise explicit directions that would allow State Research Bureaus to effectively and efficiently comply with 2 CFR 200. State DOT’s are not alone with trying to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR 200. Recently academia have utilized a top ten list of critical changes for compliance with the new regulations. These areas are:

• Effective date (§200.110) • Conflict of interest (§200.112) • Procurement (§200.317 – §200.326) • Internal Controls (§200.303) • Indirect F&A (facilities and administrative) costs (§200.414) • Indirect F&A cost recovery for subrecipients (§200.331 and §200.414) • Sub recipient monitoring (§200.331)

101

• Compensation – personal services (§200.430) • Required certifications (§200.415) • Audit considerations –Subchapter F

At the Peer Exchange, New Jersey identified a separate set of issues concerning measurement, time, risk management, and (grants management) procurement issues. These areas are:

• TIME o Performance period end date §200.77 o Closeout §200.343

• RISK

o Risk Assessment §200.205

• GRANT ADMINISTRATION/ MEASUREMENT o Required documents in light of the OMB issued ‘deviation’ from the provision in

§200.301, “Link financial data to performance accomplishments” o OMB Reporting §200.338 and §200.340 o Evaluation

• Procurement

o Requirements of §200.317-§200.326 References

1. 2 CFR Chapter I, and Chapter II, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.

2. 2 CFR 200 Implementation Guidance, FHWA December 4, 2014 memorandum HCFB-31 3. UNIFORM GUIDANCE: Documenting the Process (2 CFR 200 & 23 CFR 420) 4. Deby MacLeod, OMB Uniform Guidance Implementation “Top 10” Changes, Clark Nuber PS 5. FHWA Program Review, SPR Subpart B Research Program, Final Report November 26, 2014 6. FHWA Program Review, Management and Oversight of Subpart B Research Program-New

Jersey Department of Transportation, Final Report February 25th, 2015. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The objective of this research is to produce a comprehensive document on best practices for complying with 2 CFR 200 for State DOT Research Programs. These best practices will explain how to deal with the areas identified by academia and DOT staff for compliance with 2 CFR 200. The best practices will be based on information gathered from document reviews and interviews. The document will be flexible enough for use by state DOT research managers with varying levels of RD&T management experience. TASKS Accomplishment of the project objective will require the following tasks:

1. Review of 2 CFR 200 and 23 CFR 420.

102

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=9006960231dc2e4b9e0715a9d0d74cc5&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title02/2chapterI.tpl

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=9006960231dc2e4b9e0715a9d0d74cc5&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title02/2chapterII.tpl

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/cfo/2cfr200guidance.cfm

https://clarknuber.com/articles/omb-uniform-guidance-implementation-top-10-changes/

http://www.clarknuber.com/

2. Review Process Review Reports from FHWA on the compliance with 23 CFR 420. 3. Interviews with select state DOT research managers regarding their experiences with the

implementation of 2 CFR 200. 4. Create a final report that documents best practices for complying with the new regulations.

a. The report is to have example forms as part of the report. b. The report must contain discussion on how to handle indirect rates for IHEs c. Discuss the problem areas identified by academia and DOT staff

5. Presentation of findings to AASHTO-RAC and AASHTO-SCOR SPECIAL NOTES A. Proposals shall include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in Figure 5 in the brochure, "Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals" (http://www4.nas.edu/trb/crp.nsf under "Current RFPs [Requests for Proposals]"). Proposals also shall include a breakdown of all costs (e.g., wages, indirect costs, travel, materials, and total) for each task. B. Item 5 in the proposal, "Qualifications of the Research Team," must include a section labeled "Disclosure." Information relevant to the NCHRP's need to ensure objectivity and to be aware of possible sources of significant financial or organizational conflict of interest in conducting the research must be presented in this section of the proposal. For example, under certain conditions, ownership of the proposing agency, other organizational relationships, or proprietary rights and interests could be perceived as jeopardizing an objective approach to the research effort, and proposers are asked to disclose any such circumstances and to explain how they will be accounted for in this study. If there are no issues related to objectivity, this should be stated. C. The proposal should be a maximum of seven pages and include a statement of qualifications, a workplan, schedule, and budget. Funds Available: $75,000 Contract time: 12 months (includes 1 month for the review and revision of the final report) Staff Responsibility: Christopher Hedges, 202.334.1472 (email: [email protected])

103

http://www4.nas.edu/trb/crp.nsf

mailto:[email protected])

TRB Annual Report – December 2016

The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (TRB) continues to be recognized as one of the world’s leading transportation research organizations. It is perhaps best known for its annual meeting which is held each January in Washington, DC and which drew 12,500 attendees in 2016. TRB is also known for its other convening activities such as workshops, conferences, symposia, webinars, and committee meetings. In addition TRB supports the conduct of research through its cooperative research programs; publication of research through its journal, the Transportation Research Record and other publications; presentation of research results through its convening activities; and cataloguing of research through its Transportation Research Information Database (TRID), which lists over one million entries of published transportation research. TRB is also known for its highly respected policy studies which provide advice to the nation on important, complex, and often contentious policy issues.

This annual report provides information for our sponsors and stakeholders on accomplishments during the past year, information on progress of a number of strategic initiatives, and information on TRB finances. In an effort to present information in as useful a format as possible, summary information is provided in the annual report itself, and more detailed reports are provided for each of TRB’s divisions in the appendices.

Organization

TRB is one of seven program divisions of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The three academies honor the foremost scientists, engineers, and medical professionals in the nation and provide evidence-based policy advice on issues related to science, engineering, and medicine. Known for its standards for objectivity, the expertise it is able to draw upon, and its rigorous review process for its reports and recommendations, the Academies provide advice which is used by Congress, the Administration, and other policy makers in the development of legislation, regulations, and implementation plans on many topics, including transportation. TRB benefits tremendously from being part of the Academies in terms of the expertise it is able to draw upon and the credibility associated with the Academies. TRB is continuing to increase the amount of work that it does with other parts of the Academies and the extent to which it draws upon the expertise of Academy members.

Like the rest of the Academies, TRB draws upon the knowledge and service of volunteers who are experts in virtually all subjects related to transportation. Over 7,000 volunteers participate on TRB’s committees and research panels. Strategic direction and oversight of TRB’s activities is provided by the TRB Executive Committee, which has 26 appointed members and 20 ex officio members . Executive Committee members come from organizations representing government, academia, and private sector companies and all modes of transportation.

TRB has 211 standing committees which cover virtually all modes and subject areas related to transportation. Oversight of these committees is provided by TRB’s Technical Activities Council, which

104

consists of chairs of the eleven groups of committees. Each committee has approximately 30-35 members, with many additional volunteers on its friends list. These committees organize annual meeting and conference sessions, review approximately 6,000 papers submitted for publication or presentation at the annual meeting, develop research problem statements for consideration by the cooperative research programs and other research organizations, and serve as communities of practice for experts in their respective subject areas. Support for the standing committees is provided by staff from TRB’s Technical Activities Division.

Almost 2,000 volunteers serve on panels for TRB’s cooperative research programs. Each of these programs manages contracted research that is meant to develop products useful to practitioners with responsibility for managing and operating transportation systems. Oversight and selection of projects to be undertaken by each cooperative research program is done by an oversight committee for each program. Each project has a panel of experts that provides direction, oversight, and review of the contracted research. Support for the cooperative research program is provided by staff from TRB’s Cooperative Research Program Division.

TRB’s policy studies also draw upon many of the foremost experts in a wide range of topics addressed by the policy studies. Policy study committees are carefully constituted to provide a balance of expertise and perspectives in order to ensure objectivity, while also ensuring no conflicts of interest. TRB is able to accomplish as much as it does through the hard work, dedication, commitment, and expertise of its volunteers. Support for TRB’s policy studies is provided by staff from TRB’s Policy and Special Studies Division.

TRB’s annual budget for 2016 was $93 million. As can be expected with the number of volunteers involved in TRB, the logistics required to support TRB’s convening activities, the amount of contracted research undertaken by TRB, the number of sponsors providing financial support to TRB, and the number of special studies that TRB contracts to undertake, management of TRB’s finances is a complex undertaking. Managing TRB’s finances and contracting is the responsibility of TRB’s Administration and Finance Division.

Strategic direction and oversight of staff, as well as a number of administrative, publication, communications, and information technology functions are provided by TRB’s Executive Office.

A summary of key accomplishments of each of these organizational units is provided later in the is annual report, with more detailed reports for each of TRB’s divisions provided in the appendices.

Strategic initiatives

In June, 2014 the TRB Executive Committee adopted a five year strategic plan to guide TRB volunteers and staff on a number of strategic initiatives that it wanted TRB to undertake. This portion of the report will provide a summary of the status of implementation of these strategic initiatives.

Focusing on strategic and critical issues. In an effort to ensure that TRB is focused on the most important current and future issues, the Executive Committee identified three strategic areas for TRB

105

programs and activities to focus on for the next few years. These are emerging topics that are important issues affecting all modes and sectors of transportation. The oversight committees of each of TRB’s programs have been asked to identify ways that their programs can help advance both the state of knowledge and state of practice in these areas.

Transformational technologies. Ongoing advances in technology have the potential to fundamentally change the way transportation services are provided and to help achieve significant improvements in safety, mobility, and sustainability. TRB continues to provide leadership in convening experts and doing research in the areas of connected and automated vehicles, which have the potential to significantly reduce crashes due to human error and to improve system efficiency. Mobility as a Service is altering the way urban travelers in particular move around metropolitan areas and together with automated vehicles may change the entire auto ownership model in the United States and worldwide. Unmanned aerial systems have the potential of fundamentally changing the way some freight is delivered. The role of these services and the capture, processing, and availability of data from ubiquitous sensors through out the transportyation system can change the way real time information is used to inform travel decisions and to manage the system more efficiently. Smart transportation as part of the broader concept of smart cities has the potential to significantly improve the quality of transportation services as part of improvements in the overall quality of life of citizens in areas where these concepts are being applied. TRB is at the forefront of sharing state of the practice information and performing research on issues associated with these transformational technologies.

Resilience. Unfortunately the transportation system is being disrupted with increasing frequency as a result of natural or man-made disasters. Severe weather events are occurring with increasing frequency and are also closing down or severely affecting the operation of the transportation system. Terrorists have targeted both physical and cyber elements of the transportation system, and severely disrupted mobility of both passengers and freight. Planning for disruptions, whether due to natural or man-made causes; identifying how to manage during the disruptions; and recovering from the disruptions as quickly as possible have all become priorities for transportation system owners and operators. TRB is undertaking many convening and research activities associated with resilience. An Executive Committee task force has identified a strategic plan for addressing these issues in a coordinated manner.

Public health and transportation. Increasingly public health is being identified as an important societal goal that transportation can and should help support. Whether it is reducing fatalities and injuries due to traffic crashes, providing improved access to health care facilities, reducing the health related impacts of transportation on air and noise pollution, reducing the role of transportation in the spread of communicable diseases, addressing the mobility needs of the elderly and disabled, or improving health through encouragement of more active forms of transportation such as walking and bicycling; there are clearly many ways that transportation can play a role in improving public health.

Executive Committee task forces have developed plans for how TRB can be at the forefront in addressing each of these strategic issues. TRB standing committees are identifying how they can address each of these issues from the perspective of the scope of their committee. The cooperative research programs are developing research roadmaps to help guide research activities in each of these

106

areas. Policy studies will continue to be undertaken on specific policy issues related to each of these areas.

TRB continues to be a leader in a number of other strategic areas as well. The Executive Committee has identified goods movement as a particular area of interest. TRB has many activities underway related to freight and it will be focusing more on ensuring that a strategic approach is taken, freight stakeholders are more engaged in TRB activities and programs, and stakeholders are more aware of what TRB is doing in this important strategic area.

Review of TRB’s Legacy Programs. Each of TRB’s oversight committees regularly reviews TRB’s legacy programs to identify opportunities to address feedback received from sponsors and stakeholders and to identify improvements to processes and the timeliness and quality of products and services delivered. TRB’s strategic plan identified several areas to focus on. Some of these will be reported on in this section and others in subsequent sections.

Transportation Research Record. With the assistance of a group of experts from peer journals, a review was undertaken of the processes used by TRB to edit and publish articles in the Transportation Research Record after papers have been accepted for publication by TRB’s standing committees. Based on recommendations from this peer review, TRB has developed an implementation plan that should enable significantly earlier online availability of individual articles accepted for publication. This together with much earlier assignment of Digital Object Identifiers for articles should help increase the impact factor of articles published in the TRR. A special task force is also looking at the entire process from initial calls for papers through submission, review, and acceptance of papers to identify efficiencies and to ensure that only quality papers are accepted for publication.

Cooperative Research Programs. Sponsors and stakeholders have identified reducing the overall time that it takes from initial submission of problem statements through to availability of research results and reports as a priority for the cooperative research programs. The CRP oversight committees and staff have been performing process reviews and have identified a number of opportunities to perform steps in parallel rather than sequentially, particularly during the project selection and contracting processes, as well as ways to do more high priority research through open-ended task order contracts, thus reducing the time required to go through a lengthy procurement process. For a number of projects, the CRP program is making reports available online once they have been accepted through the peer review process, but prior to final editing, so research results and products can be made available as much as three to six months earlier than a final edited report. The cooperative research programs are also undertaking the development of research roadmaps for selected priority areas. This will ensure that a more strategic approach is taken to identify priority research and that important areas that may not surface through the more traditional problem statement submission approach are being addressed.

Several additional initiatives related to TRB’s legacy programs are discussed in subsequent sections of this report.

Strengthening TRB’s Finances and Revenues. TRB has been able to significantly improve its financial outlook during 2016. TRB has been operating with a budget deficit for the past several years. This was

107

planned in order to draw down the reserve for TRB’s core programs from levels that were higher than targets. However, operating with a budget deficit is not sustainable over the long term. An additional issue has been that over the past several years TRB faced a great deal of uncertainty regarding its long term revenues, due to the lack of long term surface transportation authorization legislation.

With passage of the five-year Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in December, 2015, much greater certainty now exists regarding revenues from federal surface transportation sources, and it is possible to do better long term financial planning. The largest share of revenues for both TRB’s technical activities and cooperative research programs comes from state DOTs through contributions of a share of each state’s Statewide Planning and Research (SP&R) funds. With modest increases in these funds projected through FY2021, the state DOT contributions to TRB will increase proportionally, and this will enable TRB to remain on a sound financial footing through the end of the FAST Act. Unfortunately due to significant earmarking of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) research, development and technology funds, a reduction was required in FHWA’s contribution to TRB’s technical activities, but this was partially offset by the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the California Air Resources Board agreeing to become sponsors of TRB. TRB also relies on annual meeting registration fees, exhibits, and patrons as an important revenue source and these continue to increase each year.

TRB continues to look for additional opportunities to diversify and increase its revenue sources. A New Revenues Task Force of the TRB Executive Committee is continuing to look at additional opportunities to attract additional support from both the public and private sector. TRB announced a planned giving program during 2016 in which individuals can support a number of TRB activities through bequests or other contributions.

TRB’s financial statement is shown on page x of this report.

Broadening and diversifying participation in TRB’s programs and activities. With over 7,000 participants on TRB’s committees and panels coming that come from a diverse array of sectors within the transportation professional community, TRB has a wide range of disciplines represented among its volunteer base. However, as the transportation community evolves and diversifies, it is critical that participation in TRB is reflective of the changes in this broader community. TRB has been focused on broadening participation from sectors that are underrepresented, particularly among new technology firms; further diversifying participation by gender, race, and young professionals; being more strategic in its international activities, and partnering with other transportation professional organizations.

As developments in technology disrupt how transportation services are provided, TRB has recognized there are many new actors becoming involved in transportation from the technology sector. TRB has proactively sought to involve participants from technology firms in TRB activities, as well as in helping identify research needs in this area. For example TRB’s automated vehicle conference has grown to now having over 1,200 participants, with many new persons participating who have not previously been involved in TRB activities. TRB held a symposium in fall, 2016 to help identify research needs across the

108

entire range of transformational technologies. TRB is also partnering with other organizations who have an interest in transformational technologies in transportation.

During 2016 TRB developed and adopted a diversity and inclusion management plan, which identifies a number of strategies intended to support the goal of engaging a diverse and inclusive pool of transportation stakeholders that is representative of the stakeholder community that TRB serves. TRB is continuing to focus on increasing the gender, racial, and age diversity of its committees and panels. TRB staff members have been reaching out to organizations that serve female, minority, and young transportation professionals in an effort to engage their members in TRB activities. TRB’s Minority Fellows Program was able to nearly double the number of students from historically minority serving colleges and universities who were able to attend the 2016 TRB Annual Meeting with financial assistance.

A task force of the TRB Executive Committee reviewed TRB’s international activities and made a number of recommendations intended to lead TRB to take a more strategic approach to its international activities. TRB will be focusing its efforts that support TRB’s strategic initiatives and which increase international participation in TRB activities. One significant example during 2016 included a joint symposium with the European Union and USDOT on the subject of climate change adaptation, which helped support TRB’s strategic focus on resilience. A second was a new memorandum of understanding with the World Road Association which will enable better sharing of information and resources between TRB and WRA.

TRB is also actively working to partner with other transportation organizations to identify areas of common interest and joint activities that can be undertaken. These types of partnerships provide an opportunity to further broaden participation of members of these organizations in TRB activities.

Evaluating and Measuring the Impact of TRB Activities. As called for in the TRB Strategic Plan, TRB is applying more systematic approaches for identifying and tracking the impacts of TRB activities.

In 2016, the NCHRP established the new staff position of Implementation Coordinator, and ACRP is using contract services to track the impacts of research products. NCHRP, ACRP, and TCRP have been conducting periodic surveys to collect information on the use of their research. Committees that receive a regular allocation of CRP funds are now requested to report each year on the benefits from previously funded projects.

Working with the National Academies, TRB has begun employing new sets of tools and databases for tracking the impacts of our products. Information on who is using these products, how the products are being used, and comments being generated is now more readily available than ever before. Over the past year, TRB has also begun tracking references to TRB products in federal and state legislation, regulations, and standards, and in testimony delivered before Congress.

The information that TRB is collecting is providing a better understanding of TRB’s regional, national, and global influence. This information demonstrates the value of the products we deliver to our

109

stakeholders. The feedback generated from this initiative will also help TRB to continuously enhance the value and quality of the services and products that we deliver.

Communicating Information About TRB and Its Programs and Activities. TRB has a diverse portfolio of products and services, which are not always well known by current and potential stakeholders. During the past year TRB adopted a communications and marketing plan to help guide its efforts to increase awareness and knowledge about TRB ‘s products and services within the transportation professional community. TRB developed and distributed a new brochure, video and PowerPoint presentation. A communications tool kit was developed for staff, and TRB staff and volunteers participated in a number of outreach events over the course of the year, including at conferences and annual meetings of several partner organizations. Work began on revisions to both TRB’s e-newsletter and website. TRB’s popular webinar series continued to grow in 2016 and has proven to be an effective means to increase stakeholders’ awareness of TRB reports and current issues in transportation. TRB has also begun webcasting selected conferences and annual meeting sessions, so those who cannot attend in person can still participate in these events remotely.

110

TRB Divisional Highlights

To manage its research, convening, and advisory activities the Transportation Research Board is

divided into three program units and two administrative units: the Technical Activities Division,

Studies and Special Programs, Cooperative Research Programs, Administrative and Finance, and

the Executive Office. Highlights of select 2016 accomplishments for each division are below.

For a more detailed look at 2016 activities of each division, see the Annual Report appendices

beginning on page XX.

TRB’s Technical Activities Division (TAD) supports standing committees and task forces,

organizes the TRB Annual Meeting and other conferences and workshops, and conducts field

visits to transportation agencies, organizations, and research institutions. TRB’s 2016 Annual

Meeting, held for the second time at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center and Marriott

Marquis Hotel, set another attendance record of 12,500. More than 2,160 of these attendees

were from outside the United States and 30% were young transportation professionals (35

years of age or younger). A highlight of the event was the Chairman’s Luncheon speaker, Chris

Urmson, then Director of the Google Self-Driving Car Program. He presented the work Google is

doing in this area, including a study of crash rates for their self-driving car compared to human-

driven cars; among the data Google used were data from the SHRP 2 Naturalistic Driving Study,

which was administered by TRB.

In 2016 the division sponsored or co-sponsored almost 50 workshops and conferences to

advance knowledge and practice across transportation modes and disciplines. A workshop on

Exploring Data and Metrics of Value at the Intersection of Health Care and Transportation,

sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, was hosted by TRB and our sister unit of

NASEM, the Division on Health and Medicine. This event brought together transportation,

medical, insurance, and other stakeholders to look at transportation and health care

partnerships, explore ways to use data to estimate the value of transportation to health care,

111

examine performance measure pertinent to the transportation-health relationship, and discuss

what is needed to calculate the return on investment in terms of health outcomes.

Upon the sun setting of TRB’s second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) in 2015,

the TAD became home to the SHRP 2 Safety Data Program, which oversees SHRP 2’s

Naturalistic driving Study data used by researchers around the world. In 2016, the Safety Data

Program activities included the kicked off an effort to develop a user community designed to

foster the sharing of tools and lessons learned; and the beginning of a strategic business

planning process aimed at finding a sustainable operational model for the database beyond

2019.

The Studies and Special Programs (SASP) Division convenes specially appointed expert

committees to conduct policy studies and program reviews, prepares synthesis reports on

behalf of the Cooperative Research Programs, and manages the Innovations Deserving

Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) programs.

Major studies released by the SASP in 2016 examined the demand for and supply of

interregional transportation in the United States; provided advice on the use of remote real-

time monitoring to improve the safety and reduce the environmental risks of offshore oil and

gas operations; developed recommendations to strengthen and sustain the safety culture of

the offshore oil and gas industry; and assessed whether the U.S. Coast Guard regulatory

process impedes the ability of U.S. flag registered vessels to effectively compete in international

commerce. The division started several other studies including the Future Interstates study

requested by Congress, and funded by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, to advise

Congress and the nation on the future role of the Interstate Highway System and options for

funding it.

Issues address in 2016 by the SASP’s synthesis activities included emergency communications

planning for airports, helicopter noise information for airports and communities, public

112

perception of mileage-based user fees, life-cycle cost analysis for management of highway

assets, and onboard camera applications for buses. In total, more than 30,000 copies of transit,

highway, and airport synthesis reports were downloaded in 2016.

At the 2016 TRB Annual Meeting, the transit, highway, and safety IDEA programs conducted

poster sessions highlighting 22 of the most promising current projects. Each session attracted a

constant stream of interested visitors, who interacted directly with the inventors. In 2016, the

IDEA program also developed a more rigorous process for the review of their publications in

order to continue to enhance the quality and value of IDEA reports.

TRB’s Cooperative Research Program manages the National Cooperative Highway Research

Program, the Transit Cooperative Research Program, and the Airport Cooperative Research

Program, the National Cooperative Freight Research Program, the Hazardous Materials

Cooperative Research Program, and the National Cooperative Rail Research Program. During

2016, these programs produced more than 100 publications and products on a range of topics

valuable to practitioners.

In 2016, more than 2,100 volunteers provided their time to help oversee more than 200

National Cooperative Highway Research Program projects in various stages of completion.

With the rapid development and deployment of connected and automated vehicle

technologies, the impacts of connected vehicles and automated vehicles on state and local

transportation agencies became of focus for much of NCHRP’s work in 2016. The American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Subcommittee on Research, which

selects projects to be address by NCHRP, also elected to have NCHRP begin development of

“research roadmaps” in three critical strategic areas in 2016—freight transportation,

transportation and public health, and transformational technologies.

Topics addressed by Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) products in 2016 included

transit-supportive roadway strategies; bus operator workstation design; the linking of transit

113

agencies and land use decision-making; how economic impacts of transit projects can be

measured; and opportunities and challenges for public transportation as they relate to

technology-enabled mobility services.

The Airport Cooperative Research Program’s examination of the ongoing transformation of the

aviation system into the next generation of technologies continued in 2016 with the publication

of the five volume ACRP Report 150: NextGen for Airports. On another hot topic within the

airport community, ACRP released five products that addressed sustainable airport operations.

Also noteworthy was the 2016 programing of $1 million in research into integrating unmanned

aerial vehicles into airports, which will build upon preceding ACRP research on this topic.

Due to an end of authorization, 2016 marked completion of the final projects from the National

Cooperative Freight Research Program and the National Cooperative Rail Research Program.

The Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program received funding in 2016 that will

allow for a yet to be determined number projects to begin in 2017.

TRB’s Administration and Finance Division provides financial, information technology, and

other administrative support, including financial oversight of the contracts and grants that

support the work of TRB, administration of publications sales and distribution, and

maintenance of benefits and services for sponsor and affiliate organizations. A statement of

income and expenditures for the calendar year 2016 appears on pages xx–xx. In 2016, the

Administration and Finance Division began a strategic review of TRB’s sponsors and affiliate

programs, with the goal of enhancing value to existing stakeholders and broadening the appeal

of the programs. Sponsors are the major source of financial support for TRB’s core programs.

Federal, state, and local government agencies, professional societies and organizations that

represent industry groups are all eligible to participate as TRB sponsors. Fees and services are

negotiated to fit each sponsor’s needs and to assure fundamental support for the Board’s

programs and activities of interest to the entire transportation community.

114

The TRB Executive Office provides policy and operational guidance on TRB programs, as well as

on issues related to human resources, diversity, information technology, communications,

library services, publication production, and strategic planning.

In 2016, the Executive Office oversaw the implementation of TRB’s strategic plan on diversity,

as well as it strategic plan on communications, collectively these efforts are designed to

enhance the value of TRB to its volunteers and constituencies, improve TRB products, and

increase public awareness of TRB. In the IT area, the Executive Office oversaw changes to the

MyTRB online-portal and began working as part of an Academies’ wide effort to develop a more

uniform web presence for the organization’s various units. Since the MyTRB portal was opened

in April 2014, more than unique 25,000 volunteers have accessed the site to provide their

contact information, participate in the Annual Meeting submission and review process, become

a friend of a TRB standing technical committee, and more.

2016 also marked the adoption of a plan to speed the release of the Transportation Research

Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. The goal of the effort, which is expected

to be fully implemented by 2018, is to have all TRR paper available in electronic format by the

end of July—five to eight months faster than the current process allows.

Overseen by the Executive Office, TRB continues to take actions designed to address various

parts of its current strategic play that was adopted in June 2014. In 2016, both the task forces

on resiliency, and transportation and public health completed development and approval of

their respective action plans. Implementation of the transformation technologies action plan

began in 2016 with the Automated Vehicles Symposium in July and the Partners in Research

Symposium on transformational technologies in transportation in October. Other activities

conducted in response to the strategic plan in 2016 included a strategic review of steps by the

Cooperative Research Program to speed the release of research results, and the

implementation of a partnership between TRB and the National Academies Press to collect data

that can be used to better identify and help track the impact of TRB products.

115

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report

December 2016

Introduction

A cooperative agreement between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) establishes the framework for management of research

activities under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). The NCHRP is

a substantial national program of highway transportation research, development, investigations,

and studies addressed to the resolution of major problems of significance to many or all of the

State departments of highways and transportation. The NCHRP provides for a continuing long

range program in which the States and other interested parties have an opportunity to combine

their efforts toward a common objective by pooling funds, thereby avoiding the time-consuming

and highly complex procedure that might otherwise be required to initiate and to conduct such a

program on an individual project basis. The NCHRP was begun in 1962 and is carried out

through the collaborative efforts of FHWA, NAS, and the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

Summary of Work Performed

NCHRP staff supported the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research (SCOR) meeting

on March 17-18, 2016. By mail ballot prior to the meeting, the AASHTO Research

Advisory Committee and SCOR rated and ranked 117 submitted problem statements. This

ranking helped order the discussions of the March meeting. SCOR selected the

recommended projects for the FY 2017 program of the NCHRP and allocated $30,775,000

as follows:

o Project Continuations (16 items, $12,775,000)—requests for additional work

items associated with existing projects.

o New Projects (37 items, $18,000,000). 24 of these projects came from AASHTO

committees. 12 were submitted by individual state DOTs, and one by FHWA.

o Reserved for off-cycle programming ($2,000,000)

The SCOR list of FY 2017 projects was submitted to FHWA for approval as to the

appropriateness of federal-aid highway funding; as of June 30 that approval was pending.

Subsequent to FHWA approval, a ballot was sent to the AASHTO Board of Directors

from the AASHTO headquarters seeking approval of the recommended projects selected

by SCOR. Each project is voted on separately, and at least 35 states need to respond

positively for each project to remain in the program. That ballot was also pending as of

June 30, 2016.

116

A solicitation to state DOTs, AASHTO committees, and FHWA for FY 2017 candidate

problem statements will be released in early July with a due date for submittals of

October 15, 2016.

Panels for the NCHRP FY 2017 projects are being formed with meetings scheduled to

begin in August and continue through November 2016 to prepare requests for proposals.

In calendar year 2016 to date, NCHRP has published 9 Reports, 2 Research Results

Digests, 3 Legal Research Digests, 13 Syntheses of Practice, and 7 web-only documents.

Of the published reports, here is a sampling of some that are timely and directly relevant

to the mission and goals of state DOTs.

NCHRP Reports

Rep. 817 Validation of Guidelines for Evaluating the Moisture Susceptibility of WMA Technologies

Rep. 818 Comparing the Volumetric and Mechanical Properties of Laboratory and Field Specimens of Asphalt Concrete

Rep. 820 Developing a Pavement-Maintenance Database System

Rep. 821 Effective Project Scoping Practices to Improve On-Time and On-Budget Delivery of Highway Projects

Rep. 822 Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures

Rep. 823 Guidelines for Certification and Management of Flexible Rockfall Protection Systems

Rep. 824 Methodology for Estimating the Value of Travel time Reliability for Truck Freight System Users

Rep. 825 Planning and Preliminary Engineering Applications Guide to the Highway Capacity Manual

Rep. 831 Civil Integrated Management (CIM) for Departments of Transportation:

NCHRP Syntheses

Syn. 484 Influence of Geotechnical Investigation and Subsurface Conditions on Claims, Change Orders, and Overruns

Syn. 485 Converting Paved Roads to Unpaved

Syn. 486 State Practices for Local Road Safety

Syn. 487 Public Perception of Mileage-Based User Fees

Syn. 488 Roundabout Practices

Syn. 489 Extending Bridge Service Life Through Field Welded Repair and Retrofits

Syn. 490 Practice of Rumble Strips and Rumble Stripes

Syn. 491 Use of Mobile Information Technology Devices in the Field for Design, Construction, and Asset Management

Syn. 492 Performance Specifications for Asphalt Mixtures

Syn. 493 Practices for High-Tension Cable Barriers

Syn. 494 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Management of Highway Assets

Syn. 495 Use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement and Recycled Asphalt Shingles in Asphalt Mixtures

Syn. 496 Minimizing Roadway Embankment Damage from Flooding

117

Syn. 498 Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways

NCHRP Legal Research Digests

LRD 69 A Look at the Legal Environment for Driverless Vehicles

LRD 70 Takings and Mitigation

LRD 72 Summary of Federal Law Restricting Use of Highway Safety Data

Other Activities:

At their meeting in December 2016, SCOR agreed to fund the development of research

roadmaps in three subject areas: Transportation and Public Health, Transformational

Technologies, and Freight Transportation. These will identify research priorities and develop

scopes of work for specific projects that address the priority needs.

At that same meeting in December, SCOR approved an NCHRP Implementation Plan. A full-

time implementation coordinator will be hired to oversee the development of implementation

plans for selected NCHRP projects. $2 million is available to fund activities that support and

expedite the implementation of NCHRP research results into practice.

Finances

All states have now provided their contributions for the NCHRP FY2016 fiscal year.

Summary of Work Planned

Table 1, Attachment A, details the status of ongoing or recently completed projects

(within the last 6 months). Contracts for the FY 2017 projects will be executed pending

the availability of funds under the FAST Act. Ongoing research will continue to be

managed by the TRB staff.

As the secretariat, TRB staff will prepare for and support the December 5-6, 2016

meeting of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research (SCOR).

TRB staff activity will begin for the FY 2017 projects by forming the expert panels to

oversee and guide the individual projects. Initial panel meetings to prepare requests for

proposals will be scheduled for the August-November 2016 time frame.

Table 2 below provides the status to date of NCHRP products that were in the editing and

publication process during the past reporting period.

118

NCHRP Publications: Status for December 31, 2015 to June 30, 2016

Rep.-Report; WOD-Web-Only Document; RRD-Research Results Digest;

LRD-Legal Research Document; CD-Compact Disc; Syn.-Synthesis

Pub No. Related Pubs Volume Title

Project No.

Estimated Actual

Pub Date PBL 20-44Q Impacts on Practice 2016 20-44Q

06/28/16

Rep. 817 Validation of Guidelines for Evaluating the Moisture Susceptibility of WMA Technologies

09-49B 03/08/16

Rep. 818 Comparing the Volumetric and Mechanical Properties of Laboratory and Field Specimens of Asphalt Concrete

09-48 03/30/16

Rep. 819 Self-Consolidating Concrete for Cast-in-Place Bridge Components

18-16 Q3 2016

Rep. 820

& CD 179 Vol. 1; & CD 179 Vol. 2

Developing a Pavement-Maintenance Database System

14-31 Q2 2016

Rep. 821 Effective Project Scoping Practices to Improve On-Time and On-Budget Delivery of Highway Projects

08-88 04/13/16

Rep. 822 & CD 183

Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures

24-39 05/31/16

Rep. 823 Guidelines for Certification and Management of Flexible Rockfall Protection Systems

24-35 05/06/16

Rep. 824 Methodology for Estimating the Value of Travel time Reliability for Truck Freight System Users

08-99 06/02/16

Rep. 825 Planning and Preliminary Engineering Applications Guide to the Highway Capacity Manual

07-22

Rep. 826 Estimating Highway Preconstruction Services Costs

15-51 Q3 2016

119


Project No.

Estimated Actual

Pub Date Rep. 827 Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to

Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects 25-43

07/11/16

Rep. 828 Guidelines for Nighttime Visibility of Overhead Signs

05-20 06/13/16

Rep. 829 Leadership Guide for Information Management for State Departments of Transportation

20-96 Q3 2016

Rep. 830 Multi-State, Multimodal Oversize/Oversight Transportation

08-97 Q3 2016

Rep. 831 Civil Integrated Management (CIM) for Departments of Transportation:

10-96

Rep. 832 Vol. 1 State DOTs Connecting Specialized Transportation Users and Rides for Specialized Transportation: Research Report

20-65/Task 60 Q3 2016

Rep. 832 Vol. 2 State DOTs Connecting Specialized Transportation Users and Rides for Specialized Transportation: Toolkit for State DOTs and Others

20-65/Task 60 Q3 2016

Rep. 833 Vol. 1

& WOD 223

Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Report

14-29 Q3 2016

Rep. 833 Vol. 2

& WOD 223

Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Assessment Process Manual

14-29 Q3 2016

Rep. 833 Vol. 3

& WOD 223

Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Coding and Marking Guidelines

14-29 Q3 2016

Rep. 834

& WOD 222

Guidebook for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Difficulties

03-78B Q4 2016

RRD 395 Claims Related to Stormwater Discharges 20-06/Topic 21- 02

Q1 2016

RRD 399 Field Validation of Laboratory Tests to Assess Cracking Resistance of Asphalt Mixtures: An Experimental Design

09-57 Q3 2016

RRD 400

& WOD 224

Sample Size Implications of Multi-Day GPS- Enabled Household Travel Surveys

08-36/Task 123

120


Project No.

Estimated Actual

Pub Date LRD 69 A Look at the Legal Environment for Driverless

Vehicles 20-06/Topic 21-

01

03/10/16

LRD 70 Takings and Mitigation 20-06/Topic 21- 03

04/18/16

LRD 71 Liability of Transportation Entity for the Unintentional Release of Secure Data or the Intentional Release of Monitoring Data

20-06/Topic 21- 04

Q3 2016

LRD 72 Summary of Federal Law Restricting Use of Highway Safety Data

20-06/Topic 22- 04

Syn. 484 Influence of Geotechnical Investigation and Subsurface Conditions on Claims, Change Orders, and Overruns

20-05/Topic 46- 04

02/05/16

Syn. 485 Converting Paved Roads to Unpaved 20-05/Topic 46- 12

01/20/16

Syn. 486 State Practices for Local Road Safety 20-05/Topic 46- 07

01/22/16

Syn. 487 Public Perception of Mileage-Based User Fees 20-05/Topic 46- 01

02/17/16

Syn. 488 Roundabout Practices 20-05/Topic 46- 02

04/04/16

Syn. 489 Extending Bridge Service Life Through Field Welded Repair and Retrofits

20-05/Topic 46- 09

03/24/16

Syn. 490 Practice of Rumble Strips and Rumble Stripes 20-05/Topic 46- 13

05/19/16

Syn. 491 Use of Mobile Information Technology Devices in the Field for Design, Construction, and Asset Management

20-05/Topic 46- 06

03/04/16

121


Project No.

Estimated Actual

Pub Date Syn. 492 Performance Specifications for Asphalt Mixtures 20-05/Topic 46-

03

06/15/16

Syn. 493 Practices for High-Tension Cable Barriers 20-05/Topic 46- 14

05/12/16

Syn. 494 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Management of Highway Assets

20-05/Topic 46- 15

05/10/16

Syn. 495 Use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement and Recycled Asphalt Shingles in Asphalt Mixtures

20-05/Topic 46- 05

Q2 2016

Syn. 496 Minimizing Roadway Embankment Damage from Flooding

20-05/Topic 46- 16

Q2 2016

Syn. 497 Extreme Extent Damage Assessment and Response for Highway Bridges

20-05/Topic 46- 11

Q3 2016

Syn. 498 Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways

20-05/Topic 46- 10

WOD 215 Incident Command System (ICS) Training for Field-Level Transportation Supervisors and Staff

20-59(30) 03/02/16

WOD 219 Hamburg Wheel-Track Test Equipment Requirements and Improvements to AASHTO T 324

20-07/Task 361 02/01/16

WOD 220 Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs

03-110 02/03/16

WOD 221 Protection of Transportation Infrastructure from Cyber Attacks: A Primer

20-59(48) 05/09/16

WOD 222

& Rep. 834

Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Difficulties: Final Project Report

03-78B

WOD 223

& Rep. 833 Vol. 1; & Rep. 833 Vol. 2; & Rep. 833 Vol. 3

Guidelines for Development of Smart Apps for Assessing, Coding, and Marking Highway Structures in Emergency Situations

14-29 Q3 2016

122


Project No.

Estimated Actual

Pub Date WOD 224

& RRD 400

Appendices for NCHRP RRD 400 08-36/Task 123

CD 179 Vol. 1

& Rep. 820

Pavement Maintenance Database: Sample Data 14-31 Q2 2016

CD 179 Vol. 2

& Rep. 820

Pavement Maintenance Database: Database Framework

14-31 Q2 2016

CD 183 & Rep. 822

NCHRP Report 822 Compendium of Field Data, Documentation, and Photographs

24-39 05/31/16

123

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT

December 2016

http://www.trb.org/acrp

I. INTRODUCTION

This ACRP progress report covers the third quarter of 2016 (i.e., July 1 through September

30, 2016). Major efforts during this period included holding a FY 2016 project-selection

meeting of the ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC) on July 21, 2016; issuing an

Announcement and panel member solicitation for the FY 2017 projects selected; and

initiation of the FY 2017 panel-selection process.

II. PROGRESS — JULY - SEPTEMBER 2016

The activities of the Airport Cooperative Research Program during the reporting period are

discussed in this section and the highlights are shown in Tables 1 and 2. The status of ACRP projects

may be found in Table 3, and on the ACRP website.

II.1 Administration

During this reporting period, ACRP activities continued. Preparations for the project-selection

meeting of the AOC took place. This meeting was held on July 21, 2016, to select FY 2017 research

projects. At that meeting, the AOC selected 16 new projects, and 7 continuations were authorized. These

projects are summarized in Table 2A and are included in Table 3.

Subsequent to the July AOC meeting, activities included development of an Announcement of the

research projects selected to inform the airport industry and the research community, and to solicit

nominations for potential project panel members. September 21, 2016, was the deadline for receipt of

project panel nominations. The panel formation process began in August. Work also continued on

projects previously selected by the AOC, as further discussed below.

II.2 Projects

Eleven ACRP publications were issued during this quarter:

Report 157, Improving the Airport Customer Experience (1-26)

Report 158, Deriving Benefits from Alternative Aircraft-Taxi Systems (2-50)

Report 159, Pavement Maintenance Guidelines for General Aviation Airport Management (9-11)

Report 160, Addressing Significant Weather Impacts on Airports: Quick Start Guide and Toolkit

(2-49)

Report 162, Guidebook for Assessing Airport Lead Impacts (2-57)

Synthesis 73, Emergency Communications Planning for Airports (11-03/Topic S04-16)

Synthesis 75, Airport Advisors at Non-Towered Airports (11-03/Topic S04-15)

Synthesis 76, Helicopter Noise Information for Airports and Communities (11-03/Topic S02-13)

Synthesis 77, Airport Sustainability Practices (11-03/Topic S02-14)

124

http://www.trb.org/acrp

Legal Research Digest 29, Impact of Firearms Laws on Airports (11-01/Topic 07-01)

Web-Only Document 29, Compendium of State and Federal Laws Affecting thePossession of Firearms at Airports (11-01/Topic 07-01)

ACRP ACCOMPLISHMENTS, JULY - SEPTEMBER 2016, BY PROJECT

General Program-Related

July 21, ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC) meeting held to select FY 2017 ACRP research

program

July 30, Announcement of FY 2017 ACRP research projects and solicitation for potential panel

nominations issued

September 11-13, ACRP staff attended NASAO Annual Meeting

September 24-27, ACRP staff attended ACI-NA Annual Meeting

Project 1-13, Developing a Database-Driven Web Application for Benchmarking Airport

Performance

September 8, final deliverables received

Project 1-26, Improving the Airport Customer Experience

August 2, final deliverables published as Report 157

Project 1-31, Innovative Solutions to Facilitate Accessibility for Airport Travelers with Disabilities

July 28, initial contractor site visit held

Project 1-32, Updating ACRP Report 16: Guidebook for Managing Small Airports

August 25, initial contractor site visit held

Project 1-33, Preparing for the Connected Airport and the Internet of Things


Project 2-49, Addressing Significant Weather Impacts on Airports

September 1, final deliverables published as Report 160

Project 2-50, Deriving Benefits from Alternative Aircraft-Taxi Systems

August 24, final deliverables published as Report 158

125

Project 2-55, Enhanced AEDT Modeling of Aircraft Arrival and Departure Profiles

August 25, interim report received

Project 2-57, Reducing the Impact of Lead Emissions at Airports


Project 2-58, Dispersion Modeling Guidance for Airports Addressing Local Area Quality Health

Concerns

August 4, draft final deliverables received

Project 2-60, Use and Potential Impacts of AFFF Containing Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances

(PFASs) at Airports

August 8, draft final deliverables received

Project 2-61, Airport Stormwater Management Electronic Resource Library and Training Materials

August 26, final deliverable received

Project 2-62, Green Stormwater Infrastructure Strategies for Airports

September 7, draft final deliverables received

Project 2-63, Quantifying Airport Ground Access Vehicle Activity for Emissions Modeling

August 11, interim report panel meeting held

Project 2-64, Guidance for Usage of Pervious Pavement at Airports

July 6, interim report received


Project 2-65, Tracking Alternative Jet Fuel

July 27, final deliverables received

Project 2-66, Commercial Space Operations Noise and Sonic Boom Modeling and Analysis


Project 2-67, Airport Air Quality Management Guidebook and Resource Library

September 28, interim report received

126

Project 2-71, Update Deicing Planning Guidelines for Airport Stormwater Management Systems and

Alternative Deicing/Anti-Icing Formulations

September 21, initial contractor site visit held

Project 2-73, Guidebook for NEPA and Environmental Reviews at General Aviation Airports


Project 3-42, Integrating UAS into Airports

September 19, 28 responses received to the RFQ

Project 4-04B, Emergency Management Training for Airport Critical Incidents


Project 4-18, Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Risk Assessment Tool


Project 4-20, Airport Emergency Operations Centers Design Guide


Project 6-04, Identifying and Evaluating Airport Workforce Requirements


Project 7-14, Improving Intelligibility of Airport Terminal Public-Address Systems

September 20, draft final deliverables received

Project 7-15, Airport Passenger Terminal Design: Electronic Resource Library

July 18, interim report panel meeting held

Project 9-11, Pavement Maintenance Guidelines for General Aviation Airport Management


Project 9-14, Advanced Computer Maintenance Management Systems Integration for Airports


Project 9-16, Best Practices for Airport Obstruction Management

September 20, 6 responses received to the RFQ

127

Project 10-24, Guidance for Developing Ramp Control Facilities


Project 10-25, Public-Notification Programs at Airports

August 29, final deliverables received

Project 11-01, Legal Aspects of Airport Programs

July 1, final deliverables received for Project 11-01/Topic 06-02, Contract RiskManagement for Airport Agreements

July 26, final deliverables for Project 11-01/Topic 07-01, published as LegalResearch Digest 29, Impact of Firearms Laws on Airports

July 26, final deliverables for Project 11-01/Topic 07-01, published as Web-OnlyDocument 29, Compendium of State and Federal Laws Affecting the Possessionof Firearms at Airports

September 13, final deliverables received for Project 11-01/Topic 07-02,Preemption of Worker Retention and Labor Peace Agreements at Airports

September 16, 4 proposals received in response to the RFP for Project 11-01/Topic 09-01, Airport Public Health Preparedness & Response: Legal Rights,Powers & Duties

Project 11-03, Synthesis of Information Related to Airport Practices

July 25, final synthesis for Project 11-03/Topic S04-16 published as Synthesis 72,Table Top and Full-scale Emergency Exercises for General Aviation, Non-huband Small Hub Airports

July 28, final synthesis for Project 11-03/Topic S04-16 published as Synthesis 73,Emergency Communications Planning for Airports

August 15, final synthesis for Project 11-03/Topic S04-15 published as Synthesis 75,Airport Advisors at Non-Towered Airports

September 16, final synthesis for Project 11-03/Topic S02-14 published as Synthesis77, Airport Sustainability Practices

Project 11-04, Graduate Research Award Program on Public-Sector Aviation Issues

July 11, design competition awards ceremony held

July 19, selection meeting held

Project 11-05, Implementation of ACRP Strategic Plan

September 19-20, annual meeting held for Project 11-05/Task 1C, Strategic Plan

Implementation - Dissemination Activity

September 19-20, interim report panel meeting held for Project 11-05/Task 4, ACRP Problem

Statement Process Assessment and Recommendations

128

Eighteen documents are in editing or in press; they are scheduled to be published in the coming months.

Report 45 Fact Sheet Updates, De/Anti-Icing Optimization (2-61)

Report 72 Edition 2, Guidebook for Selecting Methods to Monitor Airport and Aircraft Deicing

Materials: Update

Report 150 Vol. 2, NextGen for Airports: Engaging Airport Stakeholders: Guidebook (1-28)

Report 150 Vol. 3, NextGen for Airports: Resources for Airports (1-27)

Report 150 Vol. 4, NextGen for Airports: Leveraging NextGen Spatial Data to Benefit Airports:

Guidebook (9-12)

Report 150 Vol. 5, NextGen for Airports: Airport Planning and Development (3-33)

Report 155, Aligning Community Expectations with Airport Roles: User Guide (3-31)

Report 161, Guidelines for Improving Airport Services for International Customers (3-35)

Report 163, Guidebook for Preparing and Using Airport Design Day Flight Schedules (3-32)

Report 164, Exhaust Emissions from In-Use General Aviation Airport (2-54)

Report 165, Tracking Alternative Jet Fuel (2-65)

Report 166, Interpreting Airport Water Monitoring Results (2-53)

Report 167, Guidebook for Developing Ramp Control Facilities (10-24)

Report 168, Runaway Protection Zones (RP) Risk Assessment Tool User's Guide(4-18)

Report 169, Guidebook for Clean Water Act Requirements for Airports (2-61)

Legal Research Digest 30, Contract Risk Management for Airport Agreements (11-01/Topic 06-02)

Research Results Digest 25, Graduate Research Award Program on Public-SectorAviation Issues Update: 2008-2016 (11-04)

Synthesis 78, Continuity of Operations Planning for Small Airports (11-03/Topic01-11)

During this quarter, products were submitted by research agencies on the following projects:

Project 2-55, Enhanced AEDT Modeling of Aircraft Arrival and Departure Profiles, interim

report

Project 2-58, Dispersion Modeling Guidance for Airports Addressing Local Air Quality Health

Concerns, draft final deliverables

Project 2-60, Use and Potential Impacts of AFFF Containing Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl

Substances (PFASs) at Airports, draft final deliverables

Project 2-61, Airport Stormwater Management Electronic Resource Library and Training

Materials, final deliverables

Project 2-62, Green Stormwater Infrastructure Strategies for Airports, draft final deliverables

Project 2-67, Airport Air Quality Management Guidebook and Resource Library, interim report

Project 4-18, Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Risk Assessment Tool, final deliverables

Project 6-04, Identifying and Evaluating Airport Workforce Requirements, final deliverables

Project 10-24, Guidance for Developing Ramp Control Facilities, final deliverables

Project 10-25, Public-Notification Programs at Airports, final deliverables

Project 11-01/Topic 06-02, Contract Risk Management for Airport Agreements, final deliverables

Project 11-01/Topic 07-02, Preemption of Worker Retention and Labor Peace Agreements at

Airports, final deliverables

129

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

http://www.trb.org/TCRP

I. INTRODUCTION

During this quarter, preparations were made for the TOPS Committee meeting scheduled for

October 28, 2016. Research problem statements were sent to a screening panel for review; a screening

panel meeting was held via WebEx/teleconference on August 9, 2016; and information on requests for

project continuations was assembled. The problem statements that will be considered at the upcoming

TOPS Committee meeting were sent to the FTA and TOPS Committee on September 6, 2016. Details

are provided in Section II.

II. PROGRESS — JULY - SEPTEMBER 2016

The activities of the TCRP are discussed in this section, and highlights are shown in Table 1.

The status of TCRP projects may be found in Table 2, with more details on the TCRP website

(http://www.trb.org/TCRP).

II.1 Administration

In October 2015, the TOPS Committee selected six new projects that require a standard research-

agency selection process.

B-45 Transportation to Dialysis Centers: Health/Transportation Policy Intersection

C-23 Research and Testing Aimed at Eliminating Electrical Fires on Buses and Trains

E-12 Guidance for Quantifying the Return on Investment of Transit State of Good Repair

Investments

F-25 Improving the Health and Safety of the Transit Workforce with Corresponding Impacts on

the Bottom Line, Phase I: Safety and Health Impacts of Limited Restroom Access for Transit

Operators

G-16 Development of Open Data Standards for Demand Responsive Transportation

Transactions

H-54 Comprehensive Guide to Title VI Indicators for Transit

During this quarter, second panel meetings were held to select research contractors for all

projects. Contracts for the FY’2016 projects will be executed next quarter.

130



Preface

The Transit Cooperative Research Program was initially authorized in the Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and was reauthorized in the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the Safe, Accountable,

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act, and Fixing America’s

Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The program was created on May 13, 1992, by a

Memorandum Agreement among three participants: The National Academy of

Sciences, acting through its Transportation Research Board; The Transit Development

Corporation, educational and research arm of the American Public Transportation

Association (APTA); and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Memorandum

Agreement outlines the operating procedures for the program.

The TCRP focuses on issues significant to the transit industry, with emphasis on

developing near-term research solutions to a variety of transit problems involving

facilities, service concepts, operations, planning, policy, human resources, maintenance,

and administrative practices.

Planning for the program was authorized by the then Urban Mass

Transportation Administration in November of 1990. During 1991, five meetings of the

Organizing Committee were held; ISTEA provided the funding authorization in

December of 1991. In March of 1992, the sixth and final meeting of the organizational

committee was held. The Memorandum Agreement was signed in May of 1992, and the

first TCRP grant was fully executed in July of 1992. An updated Memorandum

Agreement was executed on January 12, 1999. The TCRP Oversight and Project

Selection (TOPS) Committee has met 51 times to review TCRP procedures and/or select

annual research programs. The committee most recently met in June 2016 to review

program status, and will meet again in October 2016 to select FY 2017 research projects.

131

TABLE 1 — TCRP ACCOMPLISHMENTS, JULY – SEPTEMBER 2016

JULY

July 7, proposals received for Project C-23, Assessing and Mitigating Electrical Fires on Transit

Vehicles

July 7, conference call with project panel to discuss status of Project J-11, Quick-Response

Research on Long-Term Strategic Issues

July 13, proposals received for Project B-45, Transportation to Dialysis Centers:

Health/Transportation Policy Intersection

July 15, second draft synthesis received for J-07/SA-37, Common Electronics Fare Payment:

Obstacles and Opportunities in Crossing Institutional and Geographic Boundaries

July 15, second draft Synthesis received for J-07/ SA-38, Successful Practices and Training

Initiatives to Reduce Bus Accidents and Incidents at Transit Agencies

July 15, second draft synthesis received for J-07/ SA-39, Managing Extreme Weather at Bus Stops

July 15, second draft synthesis received for J-07/ SA-40, Planning and Design for Fire/Smoke

Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems

July 15, second draft synthesis received for J-07/SH-17, Current State of the Practice for

Documenting the Economic Impact of Transit

July 24-26, principal investigator for Project H-53, Tools for a Sustainable Transit Agency

presented on the project at the APTA Sustainability & Public Transportation Workshop

July 26, proposals received for Project G-16, Development of Transactional Data Specifications

for Demand-Responsive Transportation

July 29, second panel meeting held to select research contractor for Project H-54, Guide to Equity

Analysis in Regional Transportation Planning Processes

July 29, annual panel meeting held to review program for Project J-01, Dissemination and

Implementation of Research Findings

AUGUST

August 1, second panel meeting held to select research contractor for Project F-25, Improving the

Safety, Health, and Productivity of Transit Operators Through Adequate Restroom Access

August 2, conference to discuss to status of Project H-45, Livable Transit Corridors: Methods,

Metrics, and Strategies

August 4, second panel meeting held to select research contractor for Project B-45, Transportation

to Dialysis Centers: Health/Transportation Policy Intersection

August 8, proposals received for Project J-11/Task 24, Private Transit Services and Public

Transportation

August 8-9, semi-annual panel meeting held to review program and select IDEA projects for

Project J-4, Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis—The Transit IDEA Program

August 9, FY 2017 TCRP problem statement screening panel met by teleconference

August 11, principal investigator for J-11/Task 21, The Impact of New Technology-Enabled

Mobility Services on Public Transportation presented on the project at the State of Shared

Mobility Workshop

August 12, conference call held to review key findings for Project H-52, Decision-Making Toolbox

to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation

132

August 12, second panel meeting held to select research contractor for Project C-23, Assessing and

Mitigating Electrical Fires on Transit Vehicles

August 12, interim report #2 was received for Project F-21, Tools and Strategies for Eliminating

Assaults Against Transit Operators

August 19, second panel meeting held to select research contractor for Project B-45,

Transportation to Dialysis Centers: Health/Transportation Policy Intersection

August 25, second draft synthesis received for J-07/SF-19, Addressing Difficult Customers

Situation

August 26, second panel meeting held to select research contractor for Project G-16, Development

of Transactional Data Specifications for Demand-Responsive Transportation

August 26, revised final report received for project J-11/Task 22, Value-Capture Financing for

Public Transportation Projects

August 29, second panel meeting held to select research contractor for Project J-11/Task 24,

Private Transit Services and Public Transportation

SEPTEMBER

September 1, revised final synthesis received for Project J-07/SA-38, Successful Practices and

Training Initiatives to Reduce Bus Accidents and Incidents at Transit Agencies

September 1, revised final synthesis received for Project J-07/SA-40, Planning and Design for

Fire/Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems

September 8, principal investigator for Project J-11/Task 21, The Impact of New Technology-

Enabled Mobility Services on Public Transportation presented on the project at the Women’s

Transportation Seminar’s Improving Mobility for All Seminar

September 11-14, two TCRP staff officers attended and presented at the APTA Annual Conference

September 15, first synthesis topic panel meeting held to refine scope and select author for Project

J-7/Topic SA-41, Battery Electric Buses State of the Practice

September 15, revised final synthesis received for Project J-07/SA-37, Common Electronics Fare

Payment: Obstacles and Opportunities in Crossing Institutional and Geographic Boundaries


J-7/Topic SA-42, Current Practices in Implementing Student Pass Programs


Enabled Mobility Services on Public Transportation presented on the project at the 2016 John

Noel Public Transit Conference Shared Use Mobility Workshop


J-7/Topic SB-28, Administration of ADA Paratransit Eligibility Appeal Programs

September 22, final IDEA report received for Project J-4/IDEA 79, Implementation of Smart Card

Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) Technology in Small Transit Agencies for Standards

Development


Enabled Mobility Services on Public Transportation presented on the project at the TRB

International Conference on Demand Responsive Transportation

September 27, interim report received for F-23, Knowledge Management Resource to Support

Strategic Workforce Development for Transit Agencies


J-7/Topic SB-27, Public Transit and Bikesharing

September 29, principal investigator for Report 188, Shared Mobility and the Transformation of

Public Transit Project presented on the project for a TRB Webinar

September 29, revised final report received for J-05/Topic 16-02, Legal Issues Concerning Transit

133

Agency Use of Electronic Customer Data

September 29, draft final report received for J-05/Topic 16-01, Guide to Buy America

Requirements--2015 Supplement


Enabled Mobility Services on Public Transportation presented on the project at the Seattle DOT

Shared Mobility Hubs Work Session Series


J-7/Topic SB-29, Customer Focused Service Strategies

A screening panel, composed primarily of transit professionals who have served previously on

TCRP panels, met via WebEx/teleconference on August 9, 2016 to review research problem statements

for the FY 2017 program. The panels reviewed a total of 59 research problem statements that were

submitted through the normal TCRP process. Twenty-three of these problem statements were

recommended for consideration by the TOPS Committee: 7 in Research Field A - Operations; 2 in

Research Field B - Service Configuration; 2 in Research Field C - Engineering of Vehicles and

Equipment; 2 in Research Field D - Engineering of Fixed Facilities; 5 in Research Field F - Human

Resources; 2 in Research Field G - Administration; and 3 in Research Field H - Policy and Planning.

In addition to the 23 short-listed problem statements, the TOPS Committee will consider 7

continuation requests. A notebook containing the problem statements was distributed via email to the

FTA and TOPS Committee on September 7, 2016 for review prior to the TOPS Committee meeting. The

screening panel comments were included in the notebook.

II.2 Projects

Three documents were published in the quarter.

Report 187, Livable Communities Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics and Strategies (H-45)

Report 188, Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transformation (J-11/Task 21)

Research Results Digest 112, Contracting Commuter Rail Services (G-14)

Two products are in editing or in press; they are scheduled to be published in the coming months.

Report 189, Manual to Improve Rail Transit Safety at Platform/Train and Platform Guideway

Interfaces (A-40)

Report 190, Guide to Value Capture Financing for Public Transportation Projects (J-11/Task 22)

As a reminder, at the TOPS Committee’s June 2013 meeting, it was decided that future TCRP

publications would be provided only in electronic format to reduce program administrative costs in

response to reduced overall TCRP funding. Under this arrangement, no printing costs will be incurred

through the TCRP. TCRP will continue to prepare the standard pdf electronic version of TCRP

publications and any supporting material (e.g., material that would typically be on an accompanying CD-

ROM, etc.). The electronic publications and supporting material will continue to be made available free

of charge, primarily from TRB’s TCRP website with links as appropriate to APTA’s TCRP

dissemination website.

In order to assist those that would prefer to have a hard copy of a TCRP publication, TRB has

indicated its willingness to provide a “print-on-demand” service for a fee to cover costs. As such, a

mechanism has been established by TRB to accommodate this potential need without use of TCRP funds.

134

Revenue generated by this “print-on-demand” service will be retained by TRB to offset expenses

incurred.

This electronic only with TRB “print-on-demand” for a fee option started with the following

publications:

TCRP Report 166 and on;

TCRP Synthesis 111 and on;

TCRP Legal Research Digest 45 and on; and

TCRP Research Results Digest 109 and on.

During this quarter, products were submitted by research agencies on the following projects:

Project F-21, Tools and Strategies for Eliminating Assaults Against Transit Operators, interim report

#2

Project F-23, Knowledge Management Resource to Support Strategic Workforce Development for

Transit Agencies, interim report

Project J-4/IDEA 79, Implementation of Smart Card Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) Technology in

Small Transit Agencies for Standards Development, draft final report

Project J-4/IDEA 81, Advanced Locomotive Exhaust Gas Simulator to Fine-Tune Energy recovery

and Conversion System, revised final report

Project J-05/Topic 16-01, Guide to Buy America Requirements--2015 Supplement, draft final report

Project J-05/Topic 16-02, Legal Issues Concerning Transit Agency Use of Electronic Customer Data,

revised final report

Project J-7/Topic SA-37, Common Electronics Fare Payment: Obstacles and Opportunities in

Crossing Institutional and Geographic Boundaries, second draft synthesis

Project J-7/Topic SA-37, Common Electronics Fare Payment: Obstacles and Opportunities in

Crossing Institutional and Geographic Boundaries, revised final synthesis

Project J-7/Topic SA-38, Successful Practices and Training Initiatives to Reduce Bus Accidents and

Incidents at Transit Agencies, second draft synthesis

Project J-7/Topic SA-38, Successful Practices and Training Initiatives to Reduce Bus Accidents and

Incidents at Transit Agencies, revised final synthesis

Project J-7/Topic SA-39, Managing Extreme Weather at Bus Stops, second draft synthesis

Project J-7/Topic SA-40, Planning and Design for Fire/Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger

Rail Systems, second draft synthesis

Project J-7/Topic SA-40, Planning and Design for Fire/Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger

Rail Systems, revised final synthesis

Project J-7/Topic SH-17, Current State of the Practice for Documenting the Economic Impact of

Transit, second draft synthesis

Project J-7/Topic SF-19 Addressing Difficult Customers Situation, second draft synthesis

Project J-11/Task 22, Value-Capture Financing for Public Transportation Projects, revised final

report

135

Particularly significant activity occurred on the following projects during the quarter:

Project H-45, Livable Communities Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics and Strategies

During this quarter, the revised final report for this project was published as Report 187: Livable

Communities Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics and Strategies. This report presents practical planning

and implementation strategies to enhance livability in transit corridors. This Handbook provides a

resource for planning practitioners, policy makers, and other stakeholders to measure, understand, and

improve transit corridor livability.

This Handbook provides a definition of transit corridor livability and a set of methods, metrics,

and strategies—framed within a five-step visioning and improvement process—that communities

can use to improve livability in their transit corridors. This process provides transit corridor stakeholders

with a set of tools and techniques that can help in planning and building support for corridor

improvements, screening alternatives in preparation for environmental review, identifying a corridor’s

livability needs, and developing an action-oriented set of strategies for improving transit corridor

livability and quality of life. To assist Handbook users in this process, a spreadsheet-based Transit

Corridor Livability Calculator tool is also available.

Project J-11/Task 21, Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transformation

The revised final report for this project was published as Report 188, Shared Mobility and the

Transformation of Public Transit. This report examines the relationship of public transportation (including

paratransit and demand responsive services) to shared modes, including bikesharing, carsharing, microtransit, and

ridesourcing services provided by companies such as Uber and Lyft. This report was designed to assist

transit agencies to examine issues and explore opportunities and challenges as they relate to technology-

enabled mobility services, including suggesting ways that transit can learn from, build upon, and

interface with these new modes.

Project J-3, International Transit Studies Program (ITSP)

As a consequence of reduced TCRP funding, this project is currently on hold.

Project J-4, Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis—The Transit IDEA Program

The Project J-4 panel met in early August to select the next IDEA projects. One IDEA project

was selected: IDEA 85, Location AWARE Networks Optimization Use of Transit Systems by Blind

travelers.

In addition, during this quarter the revised final IDEA report was received for IDEA 81,

Advanced Locomotive Exhaust Gas Simulator to Fine-Tune Energy recovery and Conversion System.

Project J-5, Legal Aspects of Transit and Intermodal Transportation Programs

There are seven legal studies currently in progress. The status and estimated completion date for

each is provided below.

Topic 16-01 Guide to Buy America Requirements—2015 Supplement (December 2016)

Topic 16-02 Legal Issues Concerning Transit Agency Use of Electronic Customer Data

136

(December 2016)

Topic 16-03 Public Transit Emergency Preparedness Against Ebola and Other Infectious

Diseases: Legal Issues (December 2016)

Topic 16-04 Technology Contracting for Transit Projects (December 2016)

Topic 17-01 Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Action Act on Transit Agency Liability

(January 2018)

Topic 17-02 Implications of Video Surveillance on Transit Systems (January 2018)

Topic 17-03 Legal Considerations in Relationships between Transit Agencies and Ride-

Sourcing Service Providers (January 2018)

During this quarter, the revised final legal report for Topic16-02, Legal Issues Concerning Transit

Agency Use of Electronic Customer Data was received. Also, draft final legal reports were received for

topics 16-01, Guide to Buy America Requirements—2015 Supplement, 16-03, Public Transit Emergency

Preparedness Against Ebola and Other Infectious Diseases: Legal Issues, and 16-04, Contracting for

Transit Projects.

Project J-6, Quick Response for Special Needs

There are no active Project J-6 tasks at this time.

Project J-7, Synthesis of Information Related to Transit Practices

The following synthesis program activity occurred during the quarter:

Syntheses Published: None

First Draft Syntheses

Submitted: None

Draft Final Syntheses

Submitted:

Topic SA-37 Common Electronics Fare Payment: Obstacles and Opportunities in

Crossing Institutional and Geographic Boundaries –

Topic SA-38 Successful Practices and Training Initiatives to Reduce Bus Accidents

and Incidents at Transit Agencies

Topic SA-39 Managing Extreme Weather at Bus Stops

Topic SA-40 Planning and Design for Fire/Smoke Incidents in Underground

Passenger Rail Systems

Topic SH-17 Current State of the Practice for Documenting the Economic Impact of

Transit

Topic SF-19 Addressing Difficult Customers Situation

Revised Final Syntheses

Submitted:

Topic SA-37 Common Electronics Fare Payment: Obstacles and Opportunities in

Crossing Institutional and Geographic Boundaries

Topic SA-38 Successful Practices and Training Initiatives to Reduce Bus Accidents

and Incidents at Transit Agencies

Topic SA-40 Planning and Design for Fire/Smoke Incidents in Underground

Passenger Rail Systems

137

Work continued on the FY 2015 synthesis program. The topics selected are listed below.

(1) SA-37 Common Fare Payment: Obstacles and Opportunities in Crossing Institutional

and Geographic Boundaries

(2) SA-38 Successful Practices and Training Initiatives to Reduce Accidents and Incidents

at Transit Agencies

(3) SA-39 Managing Extreme Weather at Bus Stops

(4) SA-40 Design Fires in Transit and Rail Tunnels

(5) SF-19 Methods for Dealing with Difficult Passengers

(6) SH-17 Successful Practice for Evaluating the Economic Impact of Transit

During this quarter, the revised final synthesis was received for Topics SA-37, SA-38 and SA-40.

Revised final syntheses for the remaining topics are expected during the next quarter.

In addition, work continued on the FY 2016 topics. The topics selected are listed below.

(1) SA-41 Battery Electric Buses State of the Practice

(2) SA-42 Current Practices in Implementing Student Pass Programs

(3) SB-27 Public Transit and Bikesharing

(4) SB-28 Administration of ADA Paratransit Eligibility Appeal Programs

(5) SB-29 Customer Focused Service Strategies

(6) SG-14 ADA Paratransit Service Delivery Models

(7) SG-15 Contracting Fixed-Route Bus Transit Service

During this quarter, topic panels were formed for Topics SA-41, SA-42, SB-27, SB-28 and SB-29 met to

refine the synthesis scopes and select authors. During the next quarter, topic panels for the remaining

topics will be held to refine scopes and select authors.

Project J-11, Quick-Response Research on Long-Term Strategic Issues

In June 2006, the TOPS Committee authorized TCRP Project J-11, Quick-Response Research on

Long-Term Strategic Issues at the request of APTA. This TCRP special project undertakes in-depth

research focused on the more complex, higher level issues facing the public transportation industry.

Requests for funding under this program come from APTA in response to industry issues under

discussion.

Twenty-five tasks have been authorized to date. They are listed below, along with their

status/expected completion date.

Project J-11/Task 1 Research for ENO Transportation Foundation Forum on the

Future of Metropolitan Transportation (completed)

Project J-11/Task 2 Public Transportation’s Contribution to Greenhouse Gas

Reduction and Improved Air Quality (completed)

Project J-11/Task 3 Broadening and Localizing the Connection Between Public

Transportation and Petroleum Conservation (completed)

Project J-11/Task 4 Support for the Transit Portion of the AASHTO Transportation

Visioning Process (completed)

Project J-11/Task 5 Strategy for Demonstrating the Economic Return on Transit and

the Benefits of Growth (completed)

138

Project J-11/Task 6 Role of Transit Agencies in the Regional Planning Process

(completed)

Project J-11/Task 7 Economic Impact of Transit: Update of 1999 APTA Report

(completed)

Project J-11/Task 8 Implications of an Aging Population on Transit Agency Funding

Levels (completed)

Project J-11/Task 9 Improving Transit Systemwide Energy Efficiency to Enhance

Transit’s Role in Climate Change Strategies (completed)

Project J-11/Task 10 Regional Institutional Models for Transit Agencies (completed)

Project J-11/Task 11 Approaches to Updating Urbanized Area Population and

Density Data (completed)

Project J-11/Task 12 Scoping Study and Survey of Existing Resources, Practices and

Metrics of Workforce Development Progress in the U.S. Transit

Industry (completed)

Project J-11/Task 13 National Forum on Performance Based Planning (completed)

Project J-11/Task 14 Assessment of Alternative Local and Regional Funding

Mechanisms (completed)

Project J-11/Task 15 Impacts of Cuts and Reductions in Public Transportation

Funding (completed)

Project J-11/Task 16 Improving Safety Performance Comparisons Among

Transportation Modes (completed)

Project J-11/Task 17 Millennials and Mobility: Understanding the Millennial Mindset

and New Opportunities for Transit Providers (completed-

published as Web-Only Document 61)

Project J-11/Task 18 Broadening Transportation Planning Evaluation Criteria

(completed)

Project J-11/Task 19 Critical Assessment for Future Transportation Needs Analysis

(completed)

Project J-11/Task 20 An Analysis of Bus Axle Weight Issues (completed)

Project J-11/Task 21 The Impact of New Technology-Enabled Mobility Services on

Public Transportation (completed)

Project J-11/Task 22 Value Capture Financing for Public Transportation Projects

(completed)

Project J-11/Task 23 Real Estate Market Analysis: Approaches for Measuring

Development Potential (In Development)

Project J-11/Task 24 Private Transit Services and Public Transportation (In

Development)

Project J-11/Task 25 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay of Public Transit,

Shared Mobility, and Personal Automobiles (In Progress)

Tasks 1 through 22 have been completed. Task 25 is underway and Task 23 and 24 are in development.

III. PLANNED ACTIVITIES NEXT QUARTER

Following the TOPS Committee meeting in October, the TCRP staff will announce the new

research program and solicit for panel nominations for the FY 2017 research projects. A call for

research problem statements for FY 2018 will be prepared and disseminated. The 2016 TCRP Annual

Report and the FY 2017 FTA grant application will also be prepared.

139

transportation research boardonlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/scor_working...agenda . aashto...

Documents