AASHTO RAC MEETING

NATIONAL UPDATES SESSION

7/26/11

9:45-11:45

Research and Innovative Technology Administration (Tim Klein)

Questions Specifically For RITA

  1. How successful is RITA in fulfilling its role to coordinate research among the modal administrations of the USDOT? Does the structure of USDOT facilitate or impede this goal?

RITA is increasingly successful in coordinating research through partnerships across the modal administrations, but we not yet where we need or want to be. Measures of our improvement over the past two years include:

  • Identification across all modes, launch and growth of the Research Clusters.
  • Development and continuous improvement of the internal DOT research Knowledge Management System.
  • Commencement of a nascent technology transfer coordination program.
  • Preparation of the DOT RD&T budget call and assessment.
  • Growing recognition and reputation of the National Transportation Library as a primary source for DOT research and technology information.
  • Recognition by the Office of the Secretaryand Congressional staff in calling on RITA to pull together answers to research and technology questions in support of DOT goals and stakeholder questions.

The structure of DOT is not supportive of research coordination, because (as you know) research is not centrally funded – each mode received research funding from its Congressional committee, for the mission of that modal administration. All of the modes are working well with RITA and with each other to seek common interests and to share results, and conduct shared research where appropriate to each mode’s mission, in support of broader goals.

  1. Why has there been so much turnover, especially in upper management, and how can you maintain continuity with this turnover, and changes in priorities and direction.

One of the significant challenges of a new and small agency is that upheaval is the norm in the early years; and, as noted, for the first several years of RITA’s existence, there was significant turnover at both the political and senior career leadership levels, leaving gaps and instability. This Administration recognized coming in that stability of direction and leadership is important to RITA’s success, especially for meeting longer-term research goals, so a priority for Administrator Appel has been to set career leadership in place to carry projects and programs forward, despite the usual turnover in the political ranks. In the past two years, RITA has set in place:

  • Robert Johns as the head of the Volpe Center.
  • Patricia Hu as Director of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
  • Steven Dillingham to lead the Transportation Safety Institute.
  • And, beginning August 15, a new permanent Associate Administrator for Research, Development and Technology – Dr. Kevin Womack. Dr. Womack is Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director of the Utah Transportation Center at Utah State University.

Shelley Row continues her excellent work as Director of the ITS Joint Program Office. We hope to have continuity in this team and in direction for some time, knowing that peoples’ career and personal choices will change, as will political realities that affect priorities.

General Questions

  1. What new changes and/or challenges do you see in the near and far future for your organization or program? What can we do to proactively address these changes and/or challenges? How will these changes and/or challenges impact RAC? How are current organization/programinitiatives likely to impact/benefit state DOTs in the next 5 years?

For RITA, clearly the near-term challenges are those we hold common with many Federal and state agencies – managing our programs wisely, within ever-changing resources constraints and guidance. Most immediate is getting the Fiscal Year 11 University Transportation Centers competition done; this will impact the states as it may well set the structure and expectations of the UTCs in relation to all of us for years to come. We hope that the RAC-CUTC Working Group will help pursue strong relationships and results from the UTCs for RAC members.

We also plan to:

  • Continue the National Cooperative Freight Research Program as currently operated; there is a strategic planning activity in NCFRP right now to seek improved collaboration.
  • Continue the direction of the ITS Program, towards the Safety Pilot and the Connected Vehicle/Connected Infrastructure goals as stated.
  • Maintain and improve the core functions of the Bureau of TransportationStatistics, while reaching out more to stakeholders and data users.
  • Continue and improve upon what we are doing with the Research Clusters, technology transfer, and other research coordination functions.

Longer-term, it is hard to project changes without authorization guidance, but we will need to reach out to stakeholders to prioritize as, if expected, resources are flat or reduced.

  1. What new efforts are underway to reach out to your stakeholders? How are you responsible (responsive) to your stakeholders? How can you improve the communication to state DOT research units and provide meaningful service? How can your organization/program best meet the needs of a state DOT? What are the “real” opportunities for state DOT participation in your organization/program and how can your organization/program facilitate this participation?

Not much new – RITA continues to be involved in multiple committees of both the TRB and AASHTO committee structures, relying upon them to hear from multiple stakeholder communities, some of which are not closely linked to the RAC community. For example:

  • BTS is increasing involvement in the TRB data and visualization communities, and the GIS section of BTS is active in the AASHTO GIS for Transportation(GIS-T) Committee and with the National StatesGeographic Information Council.
  • Most ITS pilot projects and demonstrations have active state DOT participation. ITS JPO has also increased TRB involvement, and routinely uses webinars and public hearings to reach out across a massive stakeholder community. ITS standards development also provides opportunity for state involvement; and FHWA continues to provide state ITS coordinators.
  • Volpe Centerstaff routinely serves on and leads TRB committees.
  1. What is the role of your organization/program in relation to the other organizations/programs represented on the panel (especially FHWA and RITA)? How do the roles fit together in an overall “agenda”?

As discussed, RITA’s role is research coordination across DOT modal administrations, and we appreciate the support received from our colleagues. Likewise, we rely on TRB for many outreach activities, and work closely with TRB through the National Transportation Library. FHWA provides most of RITA’s budget through Trust Fund allocations, and we seek to work with FHWA to ensure that what we are doing supports FHWA research priorities and goals. Agenda-setting across the Department is difficult, for reasons noted earlier.

  1. What is the biggest misperception that people have about your organization/program?

That RITA wants to “take over” the other modes’ research programs, and tell them what to do! Not only to we not want to do that, we can’t – one of the knocks on RITA (from auditors and others) is that our coordination role is undermined because we do not have budget authority to “require” collaboration. Our plate is more than full with trying to coordinate DOT myriad research, technology and statistics activities to meet our core mission; we have no desire to claim others’ programs.

  1. What would your organization/program like to get out of authorization? How can enough money be generated to pay for everything? Why can't we get rid of earmarks?What’s on tap regarding authorization and how does the Administration propose to fund it (as possible). [A congressional aide to Sen. Inhofe spoke on this at TRB, but I doubt he will be in Utah.]

RITA’s authorization proposal, like all of the Administration’s transportation policy initiatives, is based on full and open competition and peer review – i.e., no earmarks. RITA’s top goals are to:

  • Have a fully-competitive UTC Program, based on a consortium model. The idea is to select UTCs on the basis of top research priorities, not location, and to fund them with a critical mass of funding to bring real results for transportation. Both FHWA and FTA are supportive of this reform.
  • Reform the agglomeration of earmarks we currently manage into a multi-modal, fully competitive research program targeted at the gaps between modal research programs.
  • Create in BTS a Safety Data Portal, to bring together in one location easily-findable safety data currently scattered across modal websites. BTS’ role would be to host, and to providestatistical consistency across modal reporting.
  • Enable the Secretary to allow incentives across all funding streams in support of ITS deployment.
  • Continue the increasingly-productive NCFRP Program.
  1. What new efforts for research implementation are underway?

Again not new, but the ITS Program has a consistent program of standards and architecture, now reaching to international standards harmonization, to enable equipment manufacturers in the US, Canada, Europe and Japan to work together more easily, enabling fasterand better deployment. JPO continues the projectevaluation/lessons learned database as well, as a resource for smart deployment.

The newly-reconstituted Technology Transfer Program is starting with our strength – the UTCs – to help identify possible transfer/implementation items; and will be pursuing this support to all modes as needed.

  1. How do you view your role in handling basic research topics (no immediate usefulness in two years) and applied research topic (can be implemented in less than two years)?

RITA is often asked to opine on basic research topics through our role as DOT principal to the White House National Science and Technology Council. In doing so, we reach out to the modal administrations to get the technical knowledge needed to provide informed views.

Applied research is the intended domain of the Technology Transfer Program, and the focus of all RITA programs – solving near-term problems and identified needs. With resource constraints and more than enough problems to address, this seems to continue to be the prudent course.

As you know, some UTCs do engage in basic or intermediate research, mostly as part of their academic development and education programs. We certainly do not discourage this.

  1. How do you select research topics? What is your direction and how is it determined?

RITA consistently selects research topics by working with the modal administrations and external stakeholders. For instance, the topics for competition in the Remote Sensing Program are determinedthrough a multi-modal panel, with input from external parties. Direction is determined by stated DOT priorities, and the priorities of the other modal administrations involved.

As you know, the UTCs select their own themes, but they must be in line with DOT strategic goals and demonstrate relevance to USDOT and partners through their strategic and research plans. We do not take that responsibility lightly; many UTCs will tell of frustration in getting their initial Strategic Plans approved, but we do not release funding until that requirement is demonstrated. We also conduct annual review of the UTC research plans, to ensure they are within the goals set by the strategic plans.

RITA/GIP

1