Meeting Notes
RAC Leadership Teleconference
1:30 – 3:30 eastern,November 12, 2009
1-888-889-3253
Call leader is: Chris Jenks.
Pass code is: RAC
Participants: Sandra Larson (chair), Jeffrey Brown, Mara Campbell, Camille Crichton-Sumners, Ron Curb, Darryll Dockstader, Deb Elston, Chris Hedges, Jack Jernigan, Tim Klein, Ken Kobetsky, Wes Lum, Tommy Nantung, Leni Oman, Skip Paul, Dale Peabody, Sue Sillick, Lisa Williams, Bill Zaccagnino.
Decisions and action items are underscored.
Submitting reports of federally funded research
A recent email from Bill Zaccagnino reminded state DOTs of the requirement to submit hard copies of final reports for all FHWA-funded research projects. Wes Lum would like FHWA to consider permitting electronic copies rather than hard copies. Bill stated that electronic submissions are acceptable. Leni suggested Bill speak to Amanda Wilson to make sure NTL storage and archiving requirements are met.
Minutes from last meeting
A motion (CAMPBELL/PEABODY) to accept the meeting notes was approved.
Old Business
AASHTO Report (Sandra Larson):
Sandra has been working with Ken Kobetsky and Jim McDonnell of AASHTO staff to help support participants in an upcoming congressional hearing on November 19th. The hearing was called by the House Science Committee to obtain input on research needs in the next authorization bill. Five individuals have been invited to testify: Alan Pisarski, Polly Trottenberg, Peter Appel, Bob Skinner, and Neil Pedersen. Copies of their testimony will be sent to TRB, AASHTO, and FHWA.
TRB Report (Chris Hedges):
A conference is taking place today and tomorrow at TRB titled “Developing a Research Agenda for Transportation Infrastructure Preservation and Renewal”. The conference was organized by a working group comprising members of a number of TRB committees and supported by RITA. Transportation Secretary LaHood gave a presentation on the federal role in infrastructure renewal.
NCHRP staff are preparing for the SCOR meeting coming up this weekend in Charlottesville, VA. The meeting will include task force reports, discussion of the SCOR strategic plan discussion, and a review of the 20-83 program on future strategic research needs.
The oversight panel for the Transit Cooperative Research Program met last week and selected new project for the FY2010 program. An announcement and request for panel nominees will be released shortly.
An announcement was released earlier today for the Freight CRP along with a call for panel nominations. Six new projects have been selected for FY2010.
TRB participated in a “get acquainted” meeting last week with new Federal Highway Aministrator Victor Mendez. Victor has been heavily involved in TRB activities over the years and is a former SCOR chair.
The interactive program for the 2010 TRB annual meeting is now available online at
RITA Report (Tim Klein):
RITA is leading DOT preparations for the November 19 House Science hearing on transportation research priorities, with strong support from FHWA.
RITA is working on follow-up to the recent distracted drive summit. An action plan has been developed and will be reported to SCOR this weekend. Deputy Administrator Rob Bertini will be attending SCOR. Jane Mellow has been appointed the new head of congressional affairs for RITA.
Deputy Secretary Porcari has initiatived a DOT Safety Council to work cross-modal systems safety issues. RITA’s Volpe Center is staffing.
The final product for the Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG 9-1-1) research projectwas successfully delivered to ITS JPO. The product is a Procurement ToolKitto assist9-1-1 authoritiesin planning and developing procurement specifications for upgradingcurrent 911 call center systemstoNG9-1-1 technology.
FHWA Report:
Deb Elston reported that one of Administrator Victor Mendez’ focus areas is to speed the gap between research results and implementation. Part of the initiative, called “Every Day Counts”, will involve getting FHWA reports released more quickly after research is completed. Mr. Mendez is also committed to making FHWA a more environmentally responsible organization.
Wes Lum noted that the goal of speeding implementation is consistent with goals in the SCOR strategic plan.
Margie Sherrif has been hired to take the lead role for FHWA in SHRP 2 implementation. Meetings were held earlier this week with SHRP 2 staff to review product release schedules. FHWA will be reviewing the activities and funding requirements needed to facilitate SHRP 2 research implementation.
FHWA is operating under a continuing resolution until December 18th. An extension of SAFETEA-LU being debated in Congress.
Mike Trentacoste and John Moulden will be representing FHWA at the SCOR meeting this weekend.
The new FHWA Peer Exchange guidance document is being finalized based on input from the RAC Peer Exchange task force. They hope to announce the new document formally at the January 10th RAC meeting.
Lisa Williams thanked the RAC members who were involved in the FHWA’s internal Peer Exchange working force. The group was acknowledged for their work at the FHWA annual awards ceremony last month.
The next monthly Pooled Fund program webinar is taking place Nov. 18th from 1:00 – 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The topic will be dealing with SP&R waivers. At the next webinar on Dec 9th, Sandra Larson will be offering a presentation on RAC and their involvement with the program. FHWA is seeking suggestions from RAC for future topics. Sandra asked Deb or Lisa to send her an email with specifics of the request; regional leaders will be asked to pass this request along to their members. Leni Oman proposed webinars on the criteria for acceptable Pooled Fund projects and how to better promote the Pooled Fund project results in the context of recent activities on the value of research.
New Business
Task Force Updates
For the latest TF Updates:
PLEASE NOTE: Due to a transition of AASHTO websites to a new content management system, updates to the RAC/SCOR website will be delayed one to two weeks.
Rick Collins will be reporting on task force activities at the SCOR meeting in Charlottesville. Mara Campbell and Skip Paul will be at the meeting to report on their TF activities.
Skip referred to a copy of document developed by the Administration task force and distributed earlier this week (see attachment). The document proposes recommendations for NCHRP’s role in maintaining AASHTO manuals and guidelines, and was assigned to RAC in the SCOR strategic plan. It will be presented to SCOR at the Charlottesville meeting this weekend.
Mara mentioned the four-page Value of Research brochure that was developed and distributed at the Palm Desert AASHTO annual meeting. The task force is completing the “Deploy it” plan for high value projects, and is compiling the high value research projects identified at the summer RAC meeting. The latter will be distributed, posted on website, and updated annually.
Co-chairs of the Research Coordination and Collaboration task force Sue Sillick and Nancy Chinlund are working with RITA on website collaboration. The task force is also working on a survey to RAC to identify research funding sources other than SP&R. Skip Paul noted that the southeast consortium of RAC members is compiling their members’ work programs of the last five years with a view to identifying research results ready for implementation and opportunities for future cooperative efforts.
Leni Oman reported that she has sent material on Transportation Knowledge Network (TKN) task force activities to Chris Hedges for posting on the RAC website. She has also provided Rick with an update for the web status report. The task force is working with the DOT climate change clearinghouse, and assisting the TKN connectivity pooled fund project to develop a survey of how DOTs manage their information resources. Finally, the task force is involved in discussions with the data community on how TKNs can facilitate access to data sources.
Ron Curb mentioned that the task force is developing a white paper on the value of TKNs.
Deb Elston noted that she is working with FHWA staff to better organize their information and track projects.
Glen Roberts is working with Barbara Post on organizing a meeting dealing with international information sharing. This initiative is a follow-up to one of the recommendations of the international scan on research management.
Peer Exchange Update
Tommy Nantung reported that the peer exchange task force has completed its review of the new FHWA guidance document and all comments have been submitted to FHWA. FHWA has produced a second draft document and sent to Barnie Jones for review last week. FHWA hopes to finalize the document and announce it out at the January RAC meeting. Some of the changes in the new document include a revised definition of “periodic” from three years to five years, inclusion of an option for combined multi-date peer exchanges, and criteria to permit off-site participation in peer exchanges through communications technology.
SCOR Strategic Plan
Sandra reported that a SCOR working group had revised the strategic plan over the course of several conference calls and the updated plan will be presented at the SCOR meeting this weekend for approval. Most of the updates are a result of activities and accomplishments of the RAC task forces.
Summer 2010 RAC Meeting
Mara Campbell reminded the officers that the meeting is scheduled for July 26 - 30 2010 in Kansas City, MO. The theme of the meeting will be “National Coordination: Strategic Research to Results”.
A draft program will be sent to the officers for review in the near future. Mara asked for guidance on two issues: (1) whether exhibit space should be made available to vendors, universities, consulting firms, etc, and Issue – need guidance on: a) vendors/UTCs/ etc, and (2) a request to make the regional breakout meetings restricted to members only.
It was agreed to offer exhibit space to non-DOT entities on a cost-recovery basis.
It was agreed that each regional meeting would include an executive session (members only) at the end of the meeting.
A logo for the meeting will be unveiled next month when the website and online registration become available.
TRB / RAC Meeting, Sunday January 10, 2010
The final agenda is attached. Chris Hedges will send the agenda to full RAC listserv.
Any further questions for the Q&A panel should be sent to Rick Collins by December 10
RAC to CEO Communication Plan
TRB and MnDOT conducted a joint pilot workshop and peer exchange last week on the results of NCHRP Report 610 – “Communicating the Value of Transportation Research”. Leni Oman reported that during the meeting there was the discussion of developing a communication plan to CEOs to assist with authorization efforts. Leni distributed a rough draft (see attachment) and suggested raising the topic at the SCOR meeting inCharlottesville. Mara Campbell suggested touching base with Susan Martinovich first. Sandra asked Leni to prepare an email to Susan with copies to Sandra, Mara, Chris Hedges, and Crawford.
Adjournment – approximately 3:15 p.m.
Next Conf Call: Thursday December 10, 2009
Attachment 1
AGENDA
AASHTO Research Advisory Committee
Sunday, January 10, 2010
6:30-9:30 PM
Delaware Room, Marriott Wardman Hotel
2660 Woodley Road
Washington, DC
6:30Welcome – Sandra Larson
6:45RAC Business Meeting - Sandra Larson
60 minQ&A Panel
FHWA – Michael Trentacoste
RITA – Dr. Robert Bertini
TRB – Stephen Godwin
AASHTO – John Horsley
15 minSCOR Report – Sandra Larson
NCRP Activities – Chris Jenks
NCHRP Activities – Crawford Jencks
30 minTask Force Reports
15 min2010 National RAC Meeting – Mara Campbell, Rod Montney
8:45Regional RAC Breakout Meetings
Region 1 – Delaware Room
Region 2 – Virginia A
Region 3 – Virginia B
Region 4 - Virginia C
Attachment 2
NCHRP’S Role in Maintaining AASHTO Guidelines and Specifications
Background:
Many of the current AASHTO guidelines and specifications are a result of research conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). After these products have been in use for a number of years, they may require additional research to incorporate the current state of knowledge or practice. The responsible AASHTO committee will often submit problem statements to the NCHRP for research to update the products. For the larger products, it is not uncommon to update one or more sections at a time. When reviewing these problem statements, the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research finds it difficult to make rational funding decisions without a full understanding of the long-term updating costs that will be needed. There is also a question of whether funding requests to support AASHTO guidelines and specifications should be treated differently than other research problem statements. Finally, when the NCHRP research is completed, there are often additional costs related to the AASHTO balloting process and any subsequent revisions that are required as a result.
In the process of developing its strategic plan, SCOH has formed a working group on Research and Emerging Technologies. This working group has recognized the need to track updates to specifications and manuals and the need to updating manuals. Action Item 3 and Action Item 5 are directly related to this SCOR tasker. Item 3 tasks all SCOH subcommittees to review all specifications and manuals with respect for need to update. This is similar to the SCOR chair memo to AASHTO subcommittees requesting that they prioritize their research needs and provide full disclosure on multiyear tasks and plans for multi phased studies. Item 5 seeks to document the implementation of improvements to technical standards and recommendations to update manuals, through an RFP to study current practice and recommend and assist in developing a streamlined process to update manuals. This study is estimated to start in January 2010 and last one year.
Statement of Principle:
The NCHRP is commonly referred to as “AASHTO’s Research Program”. It has state DOT participation in all stages and aspects of the program, from funding, problem statement solicitation, selection of projects, development of requests for proposals, selection of contractors, and review of reports, to the implementation of results. State DOTs rely on AASHTO guidelines and specifications to conduct their business in an effective and efficient manner. NCHRP is therefore an appropriate mechanism to fund research needed to keep AASHTO guidelines and specifications up to date.
Current AASHTO products and estimated funding needs:
See attachment A. Funding needs TBD.
Recommended Policy:
- When submitting problem statements involving the updating of AASHTO guidelines and specifications, the relevant AASHTO committee must include (a) the need for research to update the product; (b) the ultimate objective of the research (i.e. whether this project is only one component of an overall plan to update an AASHTO product); (c) an estimate of total funding needs for the product over the next five-year period; and, (d) an estimated life of the document or anticipated sunset.
- These research problem statements will be reviewed and ranked on their own merit in relation to all other research problem statements received by the NCHRP.
- Costs associated with subsequent revisions after completion of the research and balloting… (one of the following three options, to be determined by SCOR):
(a) …shall be the responsibility of AASHTO;
(b) …may be considered for inclusion in the NCHRP research project scope of work and budget; or,
(c) …may be requested from the NCHRP projects that support the quick response needs of AASHTO committees (20-7, 25-25, 08-36, 20-65, 20-24).
- AASHTO staff should investigate other means of funding updates to guidelines and specifications to supplement the available NCHRP budget. These may include publication sales, subscriptions, and state contributions. For updates that can be accomplished based on advances in methods or technologies, legal findings, etc and that do not require a research component, consideration should be given to a funding source other than NCHRP such as a direct bill to each state. (ex. $150,000 cost for update / 52 states = $2885 per state).
Attachment 3
Value of Research
Communication Plan
DRAFT
Project:
Communication Challenge:
Understanding the funding risk for research and the potential consequences for transportation agencies.
Discuss and answer the following:
Establish the communication objective. What do you want to accomplish with the communication and why?
What?
To increase awareness of the funding risks to transportation research including:
- reduced buying power due to project cost increases and added uses of SPR funding;
- lack of reauthorization language (and risk of gaps from last minute development)
- success of university lobbying (can be a good thing but can be at the expense of applied research we rely on)
- the tough economy (potential risk for downsizing research investment)
To increase awareness of specific examples of the value of research, how research supports the primary functions of our organizations, and the consequences if this support is not available.
Why? To provide briefing documents and key speak points so AASHTO and our CEOs can better understand the value of research and advocate quickly for research programs and funding.
Identify the communication team. Who should be involved in developing the materials? What communication professionals are available to help?
SCOR’s Reauthorization Team, RAC members (led by the Value of Research and Funding TFs).
Communication professionals will be identified from AASHTO or member departments.
If SCOR endorses the concept of the communication plan, the draft plan will also be forwarded to the Chair of the AASHTO SCOFA Subcommittee on Public Affairs (Paula Hammond) to promote alignment with other AASHTO communication strategies.
Determine the audience: Who specifically makes up your audience? How will you determine this? What key messages will resonate with them?
Audience: AASHTO CEOs. The secondary audience is other AASHTO committees.