Appendix A

The Transportation S&T Strategy:

Committee Observations and Analysis

This appendix provides details on the observations and analysis on which the committee's recommendations in the body of this report are based. Following a brief introduction, each of the four major recommendations is addressed in turn.

INTRODUCTION

The observations and analysis presented in this appendix are based on the following:

The committee understands that the NSTC initiative to develop an integrated transportation R&D agenda is occurring against the backdrop of concerns about the allocation of diminishing federal funds for science and technology, attempts to fulfill the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, and the focus on transportation engendered by the ongoing debate over reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. The committee also recognizes the institutional and cultural obstacles that must be overcome in developing and implementing a transportation R&D agenda that coordinates activities across the modal administrations within DOT, as well as across various federal agencies. The committee's awareness of these issues informs its recommendations and the observations and analysis that follow.

1. SUSTAINING AND STRENGTHENING THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

The transportation S&T strategy under development by the NSTC Transportation R&D Committee aims to establish a process for ensuring that federal investment in transportation research conducted by all agencies is:

  1. coordinated to ensure efficient use of federal funds aimed at this mission;

  1. focused on projects identified by users, industry, and other stakeholders as being the most critical to achieving success in the agencies' missions; and

  1. limited to areas where it is clear that major public benefits can only be achieved through cost-shared federal research.

On the basis of its discussions with members of the Transportation S&T Strategy Team and other representatives of federal agencies, the committee determined that the emerging strategic planning process offers the potential for more cost-effective R&D through an integrated focus on the highest-priority R&D needs. In the committee's view, such a process is a necessary tool to obtain a higher return on federal R&D investment in a time when research budgets are under pressure. Transportation R&D takes place in several modal administrations within DOT, as well as in several agencies across the federal government, and spans a wide variety of topics. Some state departments of transportation also have significant R&D programs. A process that focuses and coordinates such diverse R&D activities offers possibilities for prioritizing limited resources; eliminating duplication; and identifying research areas that are not of high priority for any single agency or modal administration, but offer potentially high pay-off for the transportation system as a whole. Actions to meet transportation R&D needs can also be enhanced through cost sharing by the federal government, industry, and other partners, and leveraging of ongoing R&D activities both within and outside federal agencies.

1a. The transportation S&T strategic planning process should be continued over the long term and institutionalized. The committee recognizes the effort to date in developing a transportation S&T strategy as a good first step. However, the current planning initiative needs to be continued over the next several years if it is to result in a national transportation R&D strategy with broad constituency involvement and support that is capable of forming a basis for OMB/OSTP annual R&D budget guidance to DOT modal administrations and other federal agencies (see 2b below).

The committee identified three areas worthy of consideration by the Strategy Team in its efforts to support the current initiative through its formative stages.

First, ownership of the strategy by all major stakeholders in the transportation community is vital to its ultimate survival. To date, only representatives of federal agencies have been directly involved in the strategic planning process. The committee's suggestions for broadening constituent involvement in the planning process and in the implementation of the strategy are discussed in Sections 1b and 1c and in Section 3, respectively.

To maximize ownership of the strategy within federal agencies, various groups must be targeted. For example, the committee considers that participation of the highest-level administrators in the planning process is necessary if the strategy is ultimately to have the desired programmatic and budgetary impacts. The involvement of first- and mid-level managers and researchers would be beneficial in developing the transportation R&D agenda and obtaining "buy-in" through active participation in the strategic planning process.

The committee observed that agencies outside DOT have generally been active participants in developing the strategy, with resulting benefits of enhanced communication (see Section 3 below). It is the committee's understanding that the National Science Foundation (NSF), although a latecomer, is now involved in the strategic planning process, thereby providing the necessary participation by an important sector of the federally funded research community. The committee was concerned by the apparent lack of ownership of the strategy by senior-level managers within DOT, and urges the Strategy Team to address this issue as soon as possible. Recognition of the diverse roles of R&D within DOT (and other agencies) could be helpful in encouraging ownership, as could explicit mention of the role of R&D specific to individual modes (see 2c below). In addition, the R&D needs of agencies and DOT modal administrations in developing and responding to regulations should be clearly acknowledged in the strategy.

Second, the committee suggests that the strategy integrate top-down and bottom-up approaches to developing a transportation R&D agenda. The NSTC Transportation R&D Committee should view its role as one of establishing a bridge between the Administration's national transportation goals and the R&D activities of individual federal agencies and modal administrations within DOT. Although the current strategy document articulates a set of strategic goals and measures, the linkages between these objectives and ongoing federal R&D are not clearly defined. The planning process to date appears to have been primarily top-down. Broadening constituency involvement, both within and outside the federal agencies, would add an important bottom-up component to the strategy.

Third, while recognizing the significant benefits of an integrated approach to transportation R&D strategic planning, the committee urges caution in expanding the process. Resource requirements for planning should not be allowed to escalate to a level where they are no longer commensurate with the advantages of a coordinated transportation R&D agenda. Strategy development should be viewed as a means to an end and not as an end in itself, and resources should be allocated accordingly. The committee found the present collaborative approach to planning by a small team of partners, if supplemented by constituent involvement as recommended in this report, to be appropriate and more likely to foster support for the strategy than planning by a centralized, controlling bureaucracy.

1b. The strategic planning process should be extended to include participants from the diverse constituencies in the transportation community. In the committee's view, it is essential that the planning process include representatives of industry, academia, state departments of transportation, port authorities, environmental constituencies, nongovernmental organizations, users of transportation systems, and other groups that make up the decentralized transportation enterprise. Such an approach offers important potential advantages. The involvement of a broad spectrum of participants is necessary to identify R&D requirements, including those in areas that are not technology-based such as ways of overcoming barriers to technology implementation, policy, and human behavior. In addition, such involvement can enhance opportunities to identify and leverage ongoing transportation-related R&D, as well as possibilities for identifying organizations capable of performing the most cost-effective R&D, whether they be in government, industry, or academia.

The committee views the participation of U.S. industry in the strategic planning process as particularly important, given the experience of the private sector in developing outcome-oriented R&D agendas and assessing their results. In addition, industry has a major role to play in incorporating technological innovations into practical transportation-related applications in an expeditious manner. (The need to develop methods for technology transfer and implementation is highlighted in Section 3.) The committee therefore suggests that the possibility of devising incentives to encourage industry participation be considered as the strategic planning process moves forward. For example, awarding contracts on the basis of "best buy" life-cycle cost analysis, rather than to the lowest bidder, could encourage private investment in new and improved technologies. Mechanisms for improving the dialogue between the public and private sectors could also be beneficial.

1c. Greater emphasis should be placed on the iterative nature of the strategic planning process. The committee considers it important that lessons learned in developing the strategy be taken into account as the strategic planning process evolves. The committee therefore suggests that the process be updated periodically and that mechanisms be established for incorporating feedback on both achievements and failures from previous planning cycles.

2. STRENGTHENING THE STRATEGY

The committee identified a number of opportunities for strengthening the transportation S&T strategy as the planning process proceeds.

2a. The proposed R&D activities should be prioritized. The current transportation S&T strategy makes no attempt to prioritize the activities listed on the R&D agenda. The committee recognizes that the strategic planning process is at an early stage and that developing a robust set of priorities capable of surviving political change is a challenge. Nonetheless, the committee considers the term "strategy" to be a misnomer for a planning process that fails to incorporate priorities within overall resource constraints. Therefore, the committee urges the Transportation S&T Strategy Team to prioritize its R&D agenda at the earliest opportunity, preferably in cooperation with a broad spectrum of constituents and not simply federal agencies. Such priorities could be used in conjunction with assessments of economic pay-off and other public benefits to allocate federal funding for various projects (see 2b below). (The strategy does not currently provide any budget information.) The committee noted that representatives from NASA have worked with customers to develop an investment strategy for a portfolio of R&D projects designed to meet outcome-oriented goals.

The transportation S&T strategy does not include schedules and milestones for R&D activities. While the committee understands that this deficiency will be rectified as the planning process proceeds, it has difficulty in envisaging the rational development of a transportation R&D portfolio with meaningful short-, medium-, and long-term goals without a set of priorities having been established. In developing schedules, the different time horizons of different groups in the transportation industry need to be recognized. In some instances, such as interstate highway construction, long lead times are required to implement new technologies.

2b. The strategy should be explicitly linked to transportation R&D budget guidance. The committee determined that successful implementation of the transportation S&T strategy will depend not only on the development of an appropriate set of strategic partnership initiatives with wider constituency involvement, but also on the definition and implementation of detailed goal, task, and financial allocations, together with related schedules. These actions are essential if budgetary impact-potentially one of the most important benefits of strategy implementation-is to be achieved. Unless the strategy emerges as a mechanism for influencing federal R&D budgets, it cannot survive as a useful planning tool.

2c. The linkages between the vision of a transportation system in 2020 and the proposed R&D agenda should be strengthened, and the role of R&D specific to individual modes should be better articulated. The committee found the strategy document to be deficient in articulating the linkages between the vision of a "sustainable and seamless intermodal transportation system" and the 12 strategic partnerships among government, industry, academia, and others that constitute the proposed transportation R&D agenda. Following discussion with members of the Transportation S&T Strategy Team, the committee concluded that such linkages had not been satisfactorily established during the planning process. The evolutionary nature of many of the proposed developments does not emerge clearly because of the inadequate linkages between current research activities and the proposed R&D agenda, and there is no clear distinction between problems requiring research or technology development and those requiring implementation of existing technologies. In the committee's view, establishing clear linkages among the vision, current research activities, and the strategic partnership initiatives would enhance the credibility of the proposed R&D agenda as a means to achieve the desired transportation goals. (See also Section 3.) The committee also suggests that the strategy document include definitions of terms such as "intermodal" and "multimodal" in an effort to clarify its intent and encourage consistent usage.

The strategy addresses the need for investment in human capital to support national transportation goals. The committee recognizes the importance of such investment, but suggests that DOT consider carefully its role in general transportation education in the context of an initiative that focuses primarily on R&D. In addition, the human resource issues implicit in the strategy should be accorded more prominence. Changes in the transportation R&D portfolio will result in requirements for personnel with different technical and managerial skills from those traditionally needed in the transportation sector, particularly within DOT. For example, researchers and managers with expertise in information technologies and systems engineering will be required to address R&D issues relating to transportation information infrastructure.

The committee identified R&D specific to individual modes, such as research in support of the regulatory missions of the Federal Railroad Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and highway materials and structures research in the Federal Highway Administration, as an essential component of any comprehensive transportation R&D agenda. Such modal R&D is implicitly included in the strategy, but should be more clearly identified as a component of the R&D portfolio to avoid possible confusion, not only within DOT, but also at OSTP and OMB.

As noted earlier, a detailed analysis of the R&D agenda was beyond the scope of the committee's charge. Nonetheless, the committee would like to offer some limited suggestions that would strengthen the agenda and link it more clearly to the vision statement. The following suggestions are based on individual committee members' knowledge and experience of the transportation industry and are by no means exhaustive.

Two general issues merit further consideration in developing the R&D agenda. First, opportunities for R&D that promotes the development of an intermodal transportation system should be more clearly articulated. Second, R&D addressing environmental issues should be better integrated into the partnership initiatives.

The committee also offers two more specific suggestions regarding the content of the R&D agenda. The current focus of the research agenda is on passengers rather than freight; pipeline transportation is not addressed. The balance between moving goods and moving people should be reevaluated. In addition, more emphasis should be placed on monitoring and repair of the nation's aging infrastructure, which is a core mission of DOT. Retrofit options that exploit new technology as a means of extending the life of existing infrastructure should also be given more prominence.

3. IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY

On the basis of information obtained from the panel discussions with representatives of federal agencies and subsequent question and answer sessions, the committee determined that the process of developing the transportation S&T strategy has already resulted in increased communication among federal research managers and directors, particularly interagency communication. Benefits have accrued in terms of sharing ideas and identifying areas of common interest. In the case of agencies other than DOT, the process has also highlighted transportation issues and requirements for R&D. Within DOT, the extent of participation in the strategy development process by different modal administrations has varied widely. These varying degrees of involvement reflect, in part, the perceptions of individual modal administrations of the relevance of the strategy to their specific missions.

While recognizing the advantages of enhanced communication that have already accrued, however, the committee considers that the most important benefits of the transportation S&T strategy will come from its implementation. A major component of the proposed approach to strategy implementation is the establishment of the 12 strategic partnership initiatives discussed in Section 2c above. The strategy document states that each of the partnerships meets four criteria:

The committee did not review the partnerships in depth and did not verify whether they meet the above criteria. Moreover, no information was provided to the committee on relative priorities among the 12 partnerships. Thus, although the committee agreed that the concept of strategic partnership initiatives is a major strength of the strategy, it made no attempt to determine whether the 12 partnerships constitute a robust transportation R&D portfolio consistent with the nation's needs. The successful implementation of an appropriate set of strategic partnerships will be critical in determining the overall success of the current strategic planning effort.

The concept of interagency transportation-related partnerships is not new. For example, the Ship Structure Committee, established in 1946, is an interagency body that coordinates research on the structural integrity of marine structures. However, such partnerships have generally been driven by very specific needs and have neither addressed wide-ranging transportation issues nor involved the breadth of participation proposed in the current strategy. The transportation S&T strategy suggests a variety of partners, including federal agencies, the private sector (e.g., equipment manufacturers, airlines, and transportation construction firms), academia, the national laboratories, state and local government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations.

In the committee's judgment, implementation of a set of strategic partnership initiatives offers the potential to expand and diversify the transportation research base by involving all the major stakeholders at each stage in the process:

Implementation of the transportation S&T strategy would benefit from increased recognition of the fact that most transportation assets (infrastructure and vehicles) are owned and operated by state, municipal, or private groups and individuals, not by the federal government. The direct involvement of the diverse constituencies of the decentralized transportation industry-in addition to Washington-based federal agencies-would be particularly beneficial in identifying relevant expertise and in garnering broad support for the strategy, with a view to meeting the goals of a better, cleaner, cheaper, and faster transportation system. Peer reviews of R&D activities by technology users and other interested groups could be helpful in this regard.

Although some technologies-such as differential global positioning systems and integrated cargo tracking and information systems-might serve all modes, the customers for transportation-related R&D are diverse and vary in their degree of institutional readiness to implement R&D outputs. In addition, the role of federal R&D may vary not only for different transportation modes, but also for different intermodal situations, depending on the relative levels of public and private sector ownership, operational involvement, and expertise.

Additional opportunities exist to emphasize the advantages of coordinated research to those both within and outside the federal government. For example, the provision of enhanced transportation weather services would be helpful for state departments of transportation in snow removal. Lessons learned about system architecture from intelligent vehicle highway systems might be applied in collaborative government/industry programs on advanced air traffic management, providing guidance about the relative importance of cockpit automation versus ground automation.

4. DEVELOPING A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION R&D

WITHIN DOT

The committee sees the present effort to coordinate transportation R&D across the federal government as providing a unique opportunity for DOT itself to lead by example and to demonstrate the advantages of an integrated transportation R&D strategic plan across the department as a whole. However, the committee's discussions with representatives of different modal administrations within DOT and with DOT senior management revealed that, despite some important collaborative initiatives in areas such as intelligent transportation systems (ITS) infrastructure, intelligent vehicles, and intermodal information systems, there is no integrated DOT-wide R&D agenda. DOT could aptly be described as a "holding company of modal administrations." In the committee's view, this situation needs to change if the limited federal funds for transportation R&D are to be used as cost-effectively as possible in meeting the nation's future transportation requirements.

Given the potential advantages of coordination for more cost-effective R&D, the committee considers it essential that DOT develop its own integrated transportation R&D strategic plan, including appropriate budget authority and DOT-wide management authority and responsibility. Such a plan should support the NSTC Transportation R&D Committee's vision of a future transportation system for the nation. It should legitimize various categories of R&D, from basic and applied research through technology development and deployment, and should acknowledge the essential role of R&D in developing and implementing regulations. The committee recognizes that developing an integrated R&D strategic plan for DOT will present challenges in reconciling diverse objectives and prioritizing related R&D programs. Nonetheless priorities must be set in the allocation of resources and it would be best for public policy to make these choices and their rationale explicit.

The DOT R&D strategic plan should pay attention to the development of an intermodal transportation system, but should not exclude programs specific to individual modes (see 2c above). Given the emphasis on intermodal requirements in the transportation S&T strategy, and despite some increased recognition of intermodal issues within DOT, the committee urges DOT to take a more proactive approach in promoting the development of an intermodal transportation system. All transportation modes are represented under the broad umbrella of DOT, which is thus uniquely positioned within the transportation community to demonstrate the advantages of thinking and acting intermodally. The development of an intermodal R&D agenda (and a related organizational structure with resource control) within the context of a DOT-wide integrated transportation R&D strategic plan would be an important step toward realizing the "seamless intermodal transportation system" defined in the vision statement of the NSTC Transportation R&D Committee.

In the committee's view, the R&D agenda for DOT as a whole should comprise a portfolio of short-, medium-, and long-term research programs with associated priorities. The establishment of appropriate criteria would facilitate the definition and selection of the most cost-effective R&D programs. A good DOT transportation R&D agenda might include some of the features already discussed in the broader context of the interagency transportation S&T strategy, for example:

A suggested checklist for a good federal transportation research agenda is provided in Attachment A1.

The committee recognizes that some organizational changes may be needed within DOT to implement an integrated department-wide R&D agenda of the type suggested. The committee is also aware that previous proposals to reorganize DOT have not been adopted.


Review of the Federal Transportation R&D Strategic Planning Process
TRB Home Page | NRC Home Page