TR NEWS - Transportation Research Board · TR NEWS NUMBER 241 NOVEMBER ... The final plan for the landmark AASHO Road Test—approaching its 50th ... Rapid Location of Road Construction

TR NEWSNUMBER 241 NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2005

COVER: Federal AviationAdministration pilot flight-testssynthetic vision system displays onthe National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration’s (NASA’s) B-757flying laboratory, based at thefederally operated LangleyResearch Center, Hampton , Va.(Photo courtesy of NASA LangleyResearch Center/Jeff Caplan.)

3

10

16

3 Identifying Trends in Federal Transportation Research Funding:The Complex Task of Assembling Comprehensive DataAnn M. BrachThe federal government is a major sponsor of transportation research and development,but little information is available about the comprehensive scope and nature of the workfunded at federal agencies. Several attempts to identify and characterize federaltransportation research across agencies are reviewed and assessed, along with theresources available and needed.

10 A Transportation Professional on Capitol Hill:Observations of a Congressional FellowJonathan UpchurchAs a Congressional Fellow and subsequently a staff member, the author—atransportation researcher and educator—worked for the U.S. House of Representatives’Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which is responsible for federal highwayand transit programs. He offers insights into the “policy, process, and politics”; describesthe need for communicating the benefits of transportation research; and issues a call forinvolvement in the legislative arena by transportation professionals.

16 Bridges of the AASHO Road Test: A Unique and Historic Research Endeavor S. J. Fenves, J. W. Fisher, and I. M. ViestThe final plan for the landmark AASHO Road Test—approaching its 50th anniversary—included 16 short-span test bridges, representing in simplified form the types commonlybuilt on the U.S. highway system, to serve as case studies of the effect of repeatedoverstress. Three key participants in the Road Test bridge program review the scope ofthe bridge studies, the methods and approaches, the findings and directions, and thelasting results.

24 Starting Students on the Transportation and Civil Engineering Track:AASHTO’s TRAC Program Leads by ExampleSharon J. TillmanThe American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ TRACProgram—which stands for transportation and civil engineering—engages students inkindergarten through 12th grade in solving real-world problems, sends volunteermentors into classrooms, and supplies teachers with materials to connect students to thework world of transportation professionals and civil engineers and to possible careers inthese fields.

28 Research Keeps TRAC on the Right TrackCrawford Jencks

The Transportation Research Board’s 2005 Annual Report is includedin this issue as a special insert between pages 22 and 23.

00_TRN_241_CYAN.qxd5 12/20/05 10:10 AM Page 1

TR NEWSTR NEWSfeatures articles on innovative and timelyresearch and development activities in allmodes of transportation. Brief news items ofinterest to the transportation community arealso included, along with profiles of transpor-tation professionals, meeting announcements,summaries of new publications, and news ofTransportation Research Board activities.

TR News is produced by the Transportation Research Board Publications OfficeJavy Awan, Editor and Publications DirectorErika Hunter Lloyd, Assistant EditorJennifer J. Weeks, Photo ResearcherJuanita Green, Production ManagerMichelle Wandres, Graphic Designer

TR News Editorial BoardNeil F. Hawks, ChairmanWalter J. DiewaldFrederick D. HejlTimothy HessMark R. NormanStephan A. ParkerBarbara L. PostA. Robert Raab

Transportation Research BoardRobert E. Skinner, Jr., Executive DirectorSuzanne B. Schneider, Associate Executive

DirectorMark R. Norman, Director,

Technical ActivitiesStephen R. Godwin, Director,

Studies and Information ServicesMichael P. LaPlante, Director,

Administration and Finance Robert J. Reilly, Director,

Cooperative Research ProgramsNeil F. Hawks, Director, Special Programs

TR News (ISSN 0738-6826) is issued bimonthly by theTransportation Research Board, National ResearchCouncil, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001.Internet address: www.TRB.org.

Editorial Correspondence: By mail to the PublicationsOffice, Transportation Research Board, 500 FifthStreet, NW, Washington, DC 20001, by telephone202-334-2972, by fax 202-334-3495, or by [email protected].

Subscriptions: North America: 1 year $55; single issue$9.50. Overseas: 1 year $75; single issue $13.50.Inquiries or communications concerning newsubscriptions, subscription problems, or single-copysales should be addressed to the Business Office at the address below, or telephone 202-334-3216, fax 202-334-2519. Periodicals postage paid atWashington, D.C.

Postmaster: Send changes of address to TR News,Transportation Research Board, 500 Fifth Street, NW,Washington, DC 20001.

Notice: The opinions expressed in articles appearingin TR News are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the TransportationResearch Board. The Transportation Research Boardand TR News do not endorse products of manufac-turers. Trade and manufacturers’ names appear in anarticle only because they are considered essential toits object.

Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright © 2005 Transportation Research Board. All rights reserved.

C O M I N G N E X T I S S U E

30 POINT OF VIEW

A Brief History of Highway Quality AssuranceRichard M. WeedHighway quality assurance has evolved over approximately four decades andencompasses all the programs and procedures for controlling and acceptingconstruction quality. A statistical engineer who has been involved first-hand tracesthe development of quality assurance measures and methods, including bonusprovisions and performance-related specifications, and presents lessons learned andtasks ahead.

A L S O I N T H I S I S S U E :

33 Research Pays OffRapid Location of RoadConstruction Materials inFlat, Featureless TerrainDavid Jones

36 ProfilesFreight policy specialist ChristinaS. Casgar and research centerdirector Robert C. Johns

38 TRB Highlights

CRP News, 39

41 Bookshelf

44 Calendar

Two features in the January–February 2006 TR News commemorate the100thanniversary of the New York City subway system—one on the role of designer andchief engineer William Barclay Parsons and the other on the system’s impact on thecity’s growth and development. Also featured is the annual summary of findings ontransportation research needs and applications, compiled by TRB TechnicalActivities staff from field visits to every state department of transportation andrelated agencies and organizations in 2005. A special insert contains the latest edi-tion of Critical Issues in Transportation, assembled by TRB’s Executive Committee.

Breakdown on Manhattan’s Sixth Avenue elevated railway, 1901.

PHO

TO C

OU

RTESY

OF PA

RSO

NS B

RIN

CK

ERH

OFF


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

3

In 2002, transportation accounted for 11 per-cent of the gross domestic product (1, Figure13-2) and nearly 12 percent of householdexpenses (2, Table 3-12). People travel for

work and for family, health, and leisure activities anddepend on transportation for access to many goodsand services.

New ideas, methods, and technologies haveimproved the quality and efficiency of transportation.Research and development (R&D) have producedmore durable materials for bridges, pavements, andvehicles, as well as better fuel economy, safer vehicles,and reduced travel times.

Although the federal government is a major spon-sor of transportation R&D, little information is avail-able about the comprehensive scope and nature of thework funded at various federal agencies.

Federal Transportation ResearchMany agencies sponsor transportation R&D. In addi-tion to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),the list includes the Departments of Defense (DOD),Agriculture (USDA), Commerce (DOC), Energy(DOE), and Homeland Security (DHS), as well asindependent agencies such as the National ScienceFoundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA), and the Environmen-tal Protection Agency (EPA).

Except for DOT, most agencies do not identify

PHO

TO C

OU

RTESY

OF N

ASA

LAN

GLEY

RESEA

RC

H C

ENTER

/JEFF CA

PLAN

IDENTIFYING TRENDSin Federal Transportation Research Funding

The Complex Task of Assembling

ComprehensiveData

A N N M . B R A C H

Federal Aviation AdministrationPilot Chip Adams flight-testssynthetic vision system cockpitdisplays on board NASA’s B-757flying laboratory based at theLangley Research Center inHampton, Va.

The author is Senior Program Officer, TRB Studiesand Information Services, and was recently appoint-ed Deputy Director of the new Strategic HighwayResearch Program.


transportation research in their programs and bud-gets, which makes an estimate of their investments inthis area difficult. Transportation R&D is buried inprograms with goals more directly linked to the agen-cies’ missions—for example, military preparedness,security, environmental protection, energy conserva-tion, or support for business and agriculture.

Data SourcesThe three major sources for data on federal transpor-tation R&D are NSF, DOT, and the Research andDevelopment in the United States (RaDiUS) database.NSF compiles data from all the federal agenciesengaged in R&D, including DOT. RaDiUS obtains datafrom NSF and other federal agencies. Because the dataare compiled and presented differently, the correlationof results from these sources is not always apparent.

NSF. Each year, NSF collects data from federalagencies on R&D authorizations and obligations.Data are categorized in a variety of ways—for exam-ple, by budget functions such as health, defense,

space, and transportation. DOT. R&D funding data for DOT are available

from the department’s Volpe National Transporta-tion Systems Center (Volpe Center) for fiscal years1970 to 1993 and from the department’s budgetoffice for fiscal years 1995 through 2005, leaving agap for fiscal year 1994.

RaDiUS Database. The RAND Corporationmaintains the RaDiUS database, which includesdetailed information on individual research awards,such as a description of the work, the funding mech-anism, and the research performer. The data areaggregated at various levels, from project awards upto the agency or department level.

Previous InvestigationsTwo previous attempts to identify and characterizefederal transportation research across agencies haveprovided a snapshot of research funding for a singleyear and descriptions of the types of work carried outby a department or agency.

Volpe Center StudyThe first effort was by the Volpe Center, under theauspices of the White House National Science andTechnology Council (NSTC) Committee on Technol-ogy, Subcommittee on Transportation Research andDevelopment (3). Using RaDiUS data, as well as con-tacts in non-DOT agencies, the Volpe Center studyestimated the investment in transportation research inseveral federal agencies for fiscal year 1998.

The study identified programs that carry out trans-portation-related research and added up the total fund-ing for the programs to estimate transportationresearch funding. As a result, the estimate may haveincluded nontransportation research that was fundedfrom the same programs and may have omitted trans-portation research funded from other programs.

The Volpe Center study identified a total of $7.88billion in transportation R&D in seven agencies: DOC,DOD, DOE, DOT, EPA, NASA, and NSF. The NSTCsubcommittee, however, was interested in “enablingresearch,” which included human performance andbehavior; advanced materials and structures; com-puter, information, and communication systems;energy, propulsion, and environmental engineering;sensing and measurement; analysis, modeling, design,and construction tools; and social and economic pol-icy issues (3, Chapter 2).

The Volpe Center study, therefore, focused on a$4.75 billion subset of transportation research address-ing topics in these areas. Figure 1 shows the distribu-tion of funding for enabling transportation researchacross the seven agencies.

Surprisingly, DOT accounted for only 6 percent of

TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

4

FIGURE 1 Fiscal year 1998 transportation-related R&D budget authorization forselected agencies [DOD = Department of Defense; DOC = Department ofCommerce; DOE = Department of Energy; DOT = Department of Transportation;EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; NASA = National Aeronautics andSpace Administration; NSF = National Science Foundation (3, Figure 2-4)].

DOC 5%

DOE 27%

DOT 6%EPA 2%

NASA 12%

NSF 7%

DOD41%

Other59%

Intersection underconstruction at theFederal HighwayAdministration’s Turner-Fairbank HighwayResearch Center, McLean,Virginia, for the testingof traffic control devices.

PHO

TO: FH

WA


this federal investment in fiscal year 1998. The VolpeCenter study assembled the interagency funding dis-tribution for enabling research but did not include theremaining $3.13 billion from the total for transporta-tion research. As a result, the study did not revealDOT’s total contribution to federally sponsored trans-portation research.

The Volpe Center study defined enabling researchas R&D “activities with clear potential relevance toone or more transportation modes or functions,regardless of the objectives for which it is conductedor the performing agency” (3, Chapter 2). The smallpercentage of DOT funding may reflect the NSTC sub-committee’s focus on research closer to basic, that is,with broad potential applications; DOT’s researchtends to be applied and mission-specific.

TRB StudyIn December 2002, the Transportation Research Board(TRB) carried out the second attempt to ascertain theamount and type of federally sponsored transportationresearch. The effort was not intended to be an in-depthstudy, but a quick assessment of the federal transpor-tation research landscape. Prepared for TRB’s Execu-tive Committee, the study was never published.

In most cases, the data in the TRB study were forfiscal year 2002 and focused on the same agenciesaddressed in the Volpe Center study. The exceptionswere that TRB used fiscal year 1998 funding amountsfrom the Volpe Center report for DOC and NSF andonly included U.S. Army Corps of Engineers researchfunding for DOD. Other sources of data for the TRBeffort included agency reports and web pages, DOTbudget tables, and information from contacts in therespective agencies. Table 1 summarizes the informa-tion compiled by TRB.

The TRB study also indicated that the Air Forcehad a total science and technology budget of nearly$1.4 billion and that the Office of Naval Research hada budget of approximately $1.7 billion, although Table1 does not include these numbers. How much of thoseamounts funded what may be considered transporta-tion research was not clear. In comparison, the NSTCreport indicated that DOD spent nearly $2 billion onenabling research.

Research Funding in DOTFigure 2 presents R&D funding for DOT. NSF data areavailable for 1967 through 2004. DOT data cover 1970through 2004, except for 1994. RaDiUS contains datafor 1993 through 2005.

The numbers match fairly well, because DOT is thesource of the data, yet the numbers are not exactly thesame. DOT and RaDiUS report what is called budgetauthority—the amount appropriated each year for an

agency; the NSF data, however, reflect actual obliga-tions—the amount committed by an agency each year.

The reason for discrepancies between the DOT andRaDiUS data is not clear. RaDiUS may record prelim-inary data before federal budgets are finalized. Thedifferences are not large enough, however, to affect ananalysis of trends. The following observations rely ondata obtained directly from DOT.

Figure 2 shows an overall increase in DOT R&Dfunding of 360 percent from 1970 to 2003, in currentdollars. Figure 3 compares the current dollar amountsfor DOT data to constant 1996 dollars. On the whole,DOT research funding grew in real terms by only 1.5

Federal Aviation Administration $188,200Federal Highway Administration $308,611Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration $9,828Federal Railroad Administration $55,908Federal Transit Administration $60,050Maritime Administration $11,593National Highway Traffic Safety Administration $121,000Office of the Secretary $10,976Research and Special Programs Administration $9,860U.S. Coast Guard $21,273U.S. Department of Transportation Total $797,299Department of Commerce (FY1998) $250,000Department of Energy $305,000Environmental Protection Agency $29,000NASA $522,000National Science Foundation (FY1998) $300,000U.S. Army Corps of Engineers $430,000Other Federal Agencies Total $1,836,000Total for All Agencies $2,633,299

Fiscal year (FY) 2002 data, unless otherwise noted.Source: Compilations from various sources by TRB staff.

TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

5FIGURE 2 DOT R&D funding. (Data from several sources.)

TABLE 1 Approximate Federal Transportation Research Funding forSelected Agencies (in thousands of dollars)

Federal Fiscal Year

Tho

usa

nd

s o

f C

urr

ent

Do

llars

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

DOT NSF RaDiUS


TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

6

percent. R&D funding declined from about 4 percentof DOT’s total budget in 1977 to less than 1.5 percentof the total budget in 2004 (Figure 4).1

DOT generally funds applied, mission-orientedresearch in an array of areas, including infrastructurematerials, design, construction, and maintenance;safety and human factors; planning and environmen-tal sciences; economics and finance; and transporta-tion systems management and operations.

Research supports activities such as regulation, pol-icy making, design, and development of technicalstandards. Some research may be carried out in sup-port of particular technologies, depending on thetransportation mode and its industry structure—forexample, whether the private or public sector ownsand operates the transportation facilities.

For instance, the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) conducts research on highway constructionmaterials, because highways are mostly publicly ownedand operated; but FHWA does not conduct research onmaterials for highway vehicles, which are produced bythe private sector and owned by private individualsand companies. A small amount of advanced research,which supports longer-term goals instead of shorter-term mission objectives—has been carried out in areassuch as nanotechnology, computational methods, andintelligent transportation systems.

DOT’s R&D programs are distributed among thedepartment’s modal administrations. Figure 5 showsthe distribution of R&D funds in constant dollarsamong five DOT agencies from 1970 through 2004.The largest programs are those of the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) and FHWA.

FAA’s funding rose significantly in the mid-1980sbut did not sustain a growth trend. FHWA has seen asteady increase in funding from the early 1990s to thepresent. The other agencies shown—the Federal Tran-sit Administration, the Federal Railroad Administra-tion, and the National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration—experienced decreases in R&D.

Several other agencies not shown also experienceddeclining R&D budgets: the Maritime Administration;the U.S. Coast Guard, now part of DHS; and the Officeof the Secretary. The Research and Special ProgramsAdministration, now the Research and InnovativeTechnology Administration, has had a uniformly lowlevel of funding throughout its history. The FederalMotor Carrier Safety Administration spun off fromFHWA in 2000 and has had a research budget of $3million to $12 million (in 2000 dollars).

FIGURE 3 DOT R&D funding in current and constant 1996 dollars. (Data source: DOT.)

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Federal Fiscal Year

Tho

usa

nd

s o

f D

olla

rs

constant 1996 current

FIGURE 4 R&D as a percentage of DOT budget. (Data sources: R&D funding fromDOT, except 1994, which is from RaDiUS database. Total DOT budget from Office ofManagement and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the United StatesGovernment, Fiscal Year 2006.)

1 DOT R&D funding data do not include State Planningand Research (SPR) funds distributed to state departmentsof transportation. A portion of SPR funds is spent onapplied research to address state-specific needs and isusually matched by some state funds.

FIGURE 5 R&D funding for selected DOT modal administrations (in millions of 2000dollars). (FTA = Federal Transit Administration; FRA = Federal Railroad Administration;NHTSA = National Highway Safety Administration; FHWA = Federal HighwayAdministration; FAA = Federal Aviation Administration. Data source: DOT; grossdomestic product price index from White House Office of Management and Budget.)

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Federal Fiscal Year

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

450.0

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

FTAFRANHTSAFHWAFAA


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

7

Actual Fiscal Year Average Annual Estimated Fiscal YearFunding Funding Funding

Amount Number of Amount Number of Amount Percent of(millions) Projects (millions) Projects (millions) Projects

1993 $116 116 $17 74 $134 78%

2002 $182 354 $42 275 $223 92%

Totals do not equal sum of columns due to rounding.

TABLE 2 Estimated Funding of Transportation Research in Non-DOT Agencies, Fiscal Years 1993 and 2002: RaDiUS Data

Research Funding in Other AgenciesNSF DataNSF reports federal R&D funding according to federalbudget functions, including transportation. Figure 6shows current and constant dollar funding from 1961through 2005 for R&D under the transportation bud-get function. In current dollars, the trend increases,leveling off after the mid-1990s. In constant dollars, adownward trend occurs from the early 1970s.

Detailed breakdowns of the department and agencycontributions to R&D under the transportation bud-get function are available from 1993 through 2005.Figure 7 shows the DOT contribution separated fromthat of other agencies.

According to NSF data, DOT accounted for a littlemore than one-third of total federal transportationR&D. Almost all of the remainder is for NASA’s aero-nautics research. Less than 3 percent of the total isfrom DHS, which funded transportation research inthe Transportation Security Administration and theU.S. Coast Guard; before 2003, both agencies werepart of DOT.

RaDiUS DataClearly, the NSF data do not include the transporta-tion research carried out in all the other agencies. TheRaDiUS database seemed an appropriate source forthe missing information. The Volpe Center studyused RaDiUS data to focus on certain research areasfor one fiscal year and estimated the funding from thetotal for the programs that were most likely to con-duct the research.

An estimate of funding trends in these agencieswould require data for several years in all areas of trans-portation research, which would include many pro-gram areas. Because the projects are not categorized astransportation research, the database would have to besearched using transportation terms, and the data aggre-gated from the individual projects identified. This wasdone for two fiscal years, 1993 and 2002.2

Assembling the DataThe project records resulting from the searches werechecked individually to ensure relevance to transpor-tation and to eliminate duplication. The database didnot have consistent records for the item of greatestinterest—annual funding.

Some project records had no funding information,particularly for USDA projects. Others recorded fund-ing data in one of four ways: (a) total funding for an

2 Frank Brock Riggs performed the RaDiUS searches andcompiled and analyzed the search results.

FIGURE 6 R&D by transportation budget function, in current and constant dollars. (Data source: NSF.)

FIGURE 7 DOT and non-DOT contributions to R&D by transportation budgetfunction, in constant dollars. (Data source: NSF.)

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1961

1964

1967

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

Mill

ion

s o

f D

olla

rs

current $ 2000 $

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Federal Fiscal Year

Mill

ion

s o

f 20

00 D

olla

rs

Total DOT contributions Non-DOT contribution Total


TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

8

entire project, often for more than one year; (b) aver-age annual funding over the life of the project; (c)average monthly funding; or (d) actual funding forthe fiscal year.

Projects that included funding data reportedactual fiscal year funding or average annual funding,or both. If actual fiscal year funding was not avail-able, the estimate used the figure for average annualfunding. These data are presented in Table 2.

The results produce a total of $134 million in non-DOT transportation research funding in 1993, repre-senting 78 percent of the non-DOT projects obtainedfrom the RaDiUS search. The estimate for 2002 is $226 million, representing 92 percent of the projectsidentified in the 2002 search.

Comparing the FindingsFigure 8 shows the distribution of 2002 funds amongfederal agencies. NASA is included in this distribu-tion and also in the NSF data for 2002, providing anopportunity for comparison. (As a new departmentat the time, DHS did not yet include transportation-related agencies).

The RaDiUS data indicate that NASA spent $32million in transportation-related research in fiscalyear 2002, and the NSF data indicate that NASAinvested $997 million in aeronautics research thatyear. The search strategy used in RaDiUS was inade-quate for estimating NASA’s transportation researchinvestment.

A contrasting example is found by comparingNSF data from RaDiUS with a compilation of trans-portation research investments prepared by NSFstaff. RaDiUS indicates that NSF’s 2002 investmentwas about $39 million, but the NSF compilationshows an investment of $75.7 million for fiscal years2000 to 2002, or an average of about $25 million peryear.3 The difference may be that the NSF staff com-pilation includes research specifically focused ontransportation applications, but the RaDiUS searchyields basic research with broad potential applica-tions, including transportation.

Project AwardsRaDiUS also provides information on the type ofresearch performer, such as industry or business; pri-vate or public educational institution; federal gov-ernment; private nonprofit, noneducationalinstitution; state or local government; and other. Fig-ure 9 gives the distribution of project awards by non-DOT agencies for 2002.

The figure shows that the majority of the awards

FIGURE 9 Distribution of non-DOT transportationresearch projects by type of research performer.

FIGURE 10 Estimates of non-DOT investment in transportation research.

Other 1% Private

Education12%

PublicEducation

44%Federal20%

State/Local1%

Industry22%

3 Priscilla Nelson, NSF, provided this compilation oftransportation projects.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Federal Fiscal Year

MIll

ion

s o

f C

urr

ent

Do

llars

223

925

7,880

1,836

134

NSFVolpeTRBRaDiUS

FIGURE 8 Distribution of funding for transportationresearch among non-DOT agencies, fiscal year 2002.(DOI = Department of the Interior; USDA = U.S.Department of Agriculture. Data source: RaDiUSdatabase, RAND Corporation. One project fromDepartment of Education is not included.)

DOC

DOD

DOE

DOI

EPA

NASA

NSF

USDADHHS


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

9

(56 percent) were made to public andprivate educational institutions. Lessthan one-quarter went to private for-profit firms (the industry segment inFigure 9), with government agenciescarrying out the remainder of theresearch projects.

Assessing the ApproachesFigure 10 shows the single-year esti-mates of non-DOT transportationresearch funding developed by theVolpe Center for 1998, by TRB for2002, and by this study for 1993 and2002. NSF data for non-DOT R&Dfunding under the transportation bud-get function are shown for comparison.

As expected, the Volpe Center’s esti-mate according to general program areasis much higher than the others. The TRBestimate is almost twice the NSF amountfor 2002, because data for more agencieswere included; the TRB estimate, how-ever, does not include all agencies’ trans-portation R&D investments.

Despite the attempt at thoroughness, the esti-mates based on searches of the RaDiUS database arelower than the NSF numbers for the correspondingyears. This suggests that RaDiUS searches are not areasonable approach for developing trend data forfederal transportation research funding.

Improving AccuracyGiven the importance of transportation in terms ofthe economy and quality of life—as well as theimportance of the contributions that research makesto transportation goals—policy makers should beinterested in identifying the federal government’sinvestments in transportation research and in track-ing the trends in funding. These tasks, however, aredifficult to carry out with the available funding data.

The DOT and NSF data provide accurate infor-mation about transportation research investments atDOT, at two agencies of DHS—the TransportationSecurity Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard—and at NASA’s aeronautics program. Accurate data onthe funding of transportation research at other agen-cies, however, are difficult to assemble.

The inconsistency of the funding data in theRaDiUS database produces poor estimates. Identify-ing the appropriate projects to include in an analysisof transportation research depends on subjectivesearch strategies. The more comprehensive the strat-egy, the more time-consuming it is to execute.

Estimates of funding levels and trends for research

topic areas, therefore, warrant additional improve-ment. The new Research and Innovative TechnologyAdministration of the DOT is well positioned toassume this task under its mission to coordinate andadvance transportation research.

AcknowledgmentsSeveral individuals and organizations provided dataand advice for this study: Myron Goldstein, NormanPaulhus, and John Hopkins of the U.S. Department ofTransportation; Priscilla Nelson of the National Sci-ence Foundation; the RAND Corporation, which pro-vided access to the RaDiUS database; and theTechnical Activities Division of the TransportationResearch Board.

References1. Transportation Statistics Annual Report. Bureau of Transpor-

tation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, Wash-

ington, D.C., September 2004. www.bts.dot.gov/publications/

transportation_statistics_annual_report/2004/.

2. National Transportation Statistics 2004. Bureau of Transpor-

tation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, Wash-

ington, D.C., January 2005. www.bts.dot.gov/publications/

national_transportation_statistics/2004/index.html.

3. National Transportation Strategic Research Plan. Prepared by

the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center for the

National Science and Technology Council Committee on

Technology, Subcommittee on Transportation Research and

Development, Washington, D.C., May 2000. www.volpe.

dot.gov/infosrc/strtplns/nstc/srplan00/index.html.

Synthetic vision system,to give pilots a clearelectronic view in fog,adverse weather, ordarkness, is underdevelopment at NASA’sLangley Research Center.

PHO

TO: N

ASA

LAN

GLEY

RESEA

RC

H C

ENTER

/JEFF CA

PLAN


TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

10

The author is a NationalPark TransportationScholar sponsored by theNational ParkFoundation at MesaVerde National Park,Colorado. From 2002 to2004 he was aCongressional Fellowand a Professional StaffMember with the U.S.House of RepresentativesTransportation andInfrastructureCommittee. He is a pastmember of the TRBTechnical ActivitiesCouncil.

With an interest in policy and legis-lation for more than two decades,I took the opportunity in 2002 toserve as a Congressional Fellow.

Working in Congress reinforced my belief that trans-portation professionals should take a greater role inhelping to create transportation policy.

For two years I worked with the U.S. House ofRepresentatives Transportation and InfrastructureCommittee—one year as a Congressional Fellowand then one year as a professional staff member.My time with the Committee coincided with much

of the legislative effort in reauthorizing the Trans-portation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the federal highway and transit legislation thatexpired at the end of 2003.

The American Association for the Advancementof Science and 30 engineering and scientific soci-eties sponsor Congressional Fellows to ensure thatengineering and science knowledge and perspec-tives are a part of the decision-making process. TheAmerican Society of Civil Engineers sponsored myCongressional Fellowship.

Congressional Fellows must seek out a position

On May 15, 2003, the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee conducted ahearing on the reauthorization of federal highway and transit programs: (left to right) Congressional Staff LevonBoyagian, serving as Majority Counsel; Rep. Tom Petri, Chair of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee; Rep. BillLipinski, Ranking Minority Member, Highways and Transit Subcommittee; author Jonathan Upchurch, serving asMinority Counsel; and Rep. Nick Rahall.

A Transportation Professionalon Capitol HillObservations of a Congressional FellowJ O N A T H A N U P C H U R C H


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

11

on Capitol Hill that provides a good fit of theirskills, knowledge, and experience with the needs ofa congressional office. Interested in contributing tothe TEA-21 reauthorization, I sought out commit-tees or Member offices that would play a major rolein reauthorization.

Resource and AdvocateI was offered an opportunity to serve with the staffof the House of Representatives Transportation andInfrastructure (T&I) Committee. In the House, theT&I Committee is responsible for federal highwayand transit programs.

I began my work in the fall of 2002, 12 monthsbefore TEA-21 was due to expire. Although Houseand Senate Committees had done considerablegroundwork in more than 30 hearings during 2002,reauthorization activity was beginning in earnestwhen I arrived. In my two years with the Commit-tee, the House completed and passed a reautho-rization bill (HR 3550) and engaged in conferencenegotiations with the Senate for a common bill.That effort was unsuccessful for many reasons,including the distractions of the 2004 elections.

My assignments were many and varied. My pri-mary responsibility was the research title of theHouse bill, but I also contributed on many other

topics. I was involved in crafting legislation, writ-ing position papers and statements for Members todeliver on the House floor, preparing for hearings,serving as staff counsel at hearings, representingthe T&I Committee, and making presentationsbefore groups and associations about reauthoriza-tion. I served as a resource on a variety of issues andas an advocate for the importance and value oftransportation research.

I was one transportation professional making acontribution to policy and legislation. All transpor-tation professionals should take an active interest inpolicy and legislation and make a contribution. Thegreater the understanding of the process and how itworks, the more effective the contribution. Follow-ing are some insights into the congressional legisla-tive process.

Policy, Process, and Politics Every major piece of legislation passed by Congressis influenced by policy, process, and politics. Policyrepresents the objectives of a federal program andthe best mechanisms to achieve those objectives.Policy is debated and formed as a bill movesthrough the legislative process.

Process refers to the procedures and rules that arefollowed at all steps in the legislative development—

Under the auspices of the American Asso-ciation for the Advancement of Science

(AAAS), approximately 30 engineering andscientific societies sponsor Congressional Fel-lows each year. Each Fellow spends one yearworking on the staff of a Member of Con-gress or of a congressional committee. Fel-lows work with congressional staff andperform the same types of tasks. Most impor-tantly, Fellows provide scientific and techni-cal input to policy making, decision making,and the creation of legislation.

The goals of the Congressional Fellows pro-gram are to provide a public policy learningexperience, to demonstrate the value of sci-ence–government interaction, and to bring tech-nical backgrounds and external perspectives tothe congressional decision-making process.

Fellows begin the year-long assignmentwith a comprehensive, two-week orientationorganized by AAAS. The orientation intro-

duces Fellows to government, policy making,and the workings of Congress, through pre-sentations by Members of Congress and high-level officials in Executive Branch agencies.The orientation includes training in the Houseand Senate procedures for considering anddeveloping legislation, with significant atten-tion to the roles of policy, process, and politics.

After orientation, Fellows seek out assign-ments with the staff of an individual memberof Congress or of a congressional committee.Through interviews with several offices, theFellow finds the best fit of skills and knowl-edge with the needs of a congressional office.

During the year on Capitol Hill, each Fellowcontributes to the development of policy andlegislation, providing the scientific and tech-nical viewpoint. For additional information onthe Congressional Fellows Program, visit thewebsite, http://fellowships.aaas.org/02_Areas/02_Congressional.shtml.

What Is the Congressional Fellows Program?


TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

12

in subcommittee, in committee, and in debate on theHouse floor. The House Rules Committee, for exam-ple, has a profound influence on a bill by decidingwhich amendments may be offered in floor debate.Another example of process is a conference commit-tee that works to reconcile differences between the ver-sions of bills passed by the House and the Senate.

Every Member of Congress is influenced by theneeds of constituents. This is politics. A good exam-ple is how a Member’s position on the issue of“donor” versus “donee” states is determined by thestate’s needs. Donor states pay more into the High-way Trust Fund than they receive; donee statesreceive more than they pay.

Recognizing that policy, process, and politicsinfluence legislation can help a transportation pro-fessional better understand the creation of legisla-tion and how to contribute effectively to thelegislative process.

Authorizing and AppropriatingCongress must authorize every activity or programof the federal government—that is, Congress mustgrant permission for an activity or program to existand for how long. Federal highway and transit leg-islation historically has been reauthorized everyfour to six years (see table, above).

Most committees in the House and Senate areauthorizing committees. Many committees have arole in authorizing highway and transit programs (seesidebar, page 13), which complicates reauthorization.In contrast, appropriations committees decide annu-ally how much money to spend on various programs.

The legislative process may seem remote and

outside the technical skills of many in transporta-tion-related professions. Yet legislation is vital to theability of transportation professionals to serve thepublic and to provide a safe, rapid, comfortable,convenient, economical, and environmentally com-patible transportation system.

Highway and Transit ReauthorizationReauthorization legislation is complex, coveringdozens of programs. Highways, highway safety,public transportation, motor carrier transportationand safety, research and education, planning andproject delivery, transportation of hazardous mate-rials, and financing—or generating revenues tofund the programs—are major components of areauthorization bill.

A variety of issues is to be covered, involvingmany House and Senate authorizing committees. Asa result, the bills passed by the House and the Sen-ate in 2004 were 982 pages and 1,411 pages inlength, respectively. The complexity of the legislationcontributes to the historical experience that reau-thorizations rarely are enacted on time (see sidebar,page 14).

Year of Length ofName of Legislation Nickname Enactment Reauthorization

Surface Transportation STAA 1982 4 yearsAssistance Act

Surface Transportation STURAA 1987 5 yearsand Uniform Relocation Assistance Act

Intermodal ISTEA 1991 6 yearsSurface Transportation Efficiency Act

Transportation Equity Act TEA-21 1998 6 yearsfor the 21st Century

Past Reauthorizations of Highway and Transit LegislationHistorically, highway and transit reauthorization bills have been enacted by Congressevery four to six years. The past two reauthorizations have been for six years.

(Left to right:) Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Rep.James Oberstar, and Rep. Brian Baird hold a pressconference, September 15, 2003, on the RebuildAmerica Act, introduced in the House ofRepresentatives. Congressional staff is instrumentalin drafting proposed legislation, such as the RebuildAmerica Act.


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

13

Dynamics of InfluenceMany dynamics, often external to the transporta-tion program, shape decision making. The state ofthe economy, unemployment levels, the federalbudget deficit, the price of gasoline and the effecton the gas tax, the level of funding that is politicallyachievable, the resolution of donor–donee issues,the positions of the Office of Management and Bud-get and of the White House, election-year politicsand re-election campaigns, and the needs of transit-intensive states versus rural states are some of themajor dynamics that come into play.

Who Writes Legislation? Congressional staff write a bill and make roughly 90percent of the decisions that affect the wording of leg-islation. Although Members of Congress make themajor decisions and provide direction, the staff areresponsible for much of the policy making and forwhat is included in a bill.

Staff have an influential role. Their knowledge ofthe programs and issues and their level of experi-ence determine the quality of the legislation.

Only a dozen Members of Congress have engi-neering or science degrees. With the exception ofthe staff for a few committees, such as the HouseScience Committee, few other congressional staffhave engineering or science backgrounds. Thisunderscores the importance of having the perspec-tives of science and engineering available whencongressional staff and Members of Congress makepolicy decisions.

Two of my staff colleagues together had gained atotal of 37 years of experience working for the T&ICommittee. Their knowledge was exceptional, as wastheir institutional memory of past reauthorizations.But such a wealth of experience is unusual; a staffmember’s experience with a topic is as likely to beshort as it is to be long. But even with years of expe-rience, a staff member cannot know all of the issuesthat will surface as legislation develops.

Learning About the Issues To be well informed in drafting legislation, con-gressional staff must learn continually about relatedtopics and issues. Reports prepared by the Govern-ment Accountability Office and a variety of gov-ernment and nongovernment sources are key.

Staff also rely on the Congressional ResearchService, an office of the Library of Congress, toresearch topics and to collect information. Staffattend briefings presented by interest groups. A pri-mary source of knowledge is meeting with and lis-tening to those who take the initiative to informCongress—constituents, lobbyists, individuals, and

representatives of interest groups, professional asso-ciations, and state and local governments. This isone of the opportunities for transportation profes-sionals to present viewpoints.

Lobbying Is Not Bad To many, a lobbyist is a well-connected, well-paidindividual with too much influence on congres-sional legislation. Some of the professional regis-tered lobbyists may fit this stereotype, but most ofthose who present their viewpoints and profes-sional opinions to Members of Congress and con-gressional staff are playing an importantinformational role. The meetings and briefings helpto educate and inform Members and staff aboutprograms, issues, and policy proposals.

For example, a national interest group, a statedepartment of transportation, and the transporta-tion consulting community coordinated efforts todemonstrate the benefits of intelligent transporta-tion systems by conducting a tour of a traffic oper-ations center a few miles from Capitol Hill.

Did You Know?

Four Senate authorizing committees have a primary role in reauthorizinghighway and transit programs:

The Environment and Public Works Committee is generally respon-sible for programs of the Federal Highway Administration.

The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee is respon-sible for highway and motor carrier safety issues, which generally corre-spond with the programs of the National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

The Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee is responsiblefor Federal Transit Administration programs.

The Finance Committee is responsible for identifying sources ofrevenue to fund highway and transit programs.

In the House of Representatives,

The primary reauthorization committee is the Transportation andInfrastructure Committee, which has responsibility for all issues exceptrevenues.

The Science Committee contributes to transportation researchissues.

The Ways and Means Committee is responsible for identifyingsources of revenue to fund highway and transit programs.

With 75 Members, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee isthe largest committee in the House.


TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

14

Presentations were made on real-time freeway man-agement and the benefits of coordinated traffic sig-nal systems on surface streets. The dozencongressional staff who participated came awayfrom the event with a better understanding of trans-portation management and operations and why thattype of program deserved funding.

Bipartisan Issue The statement is often made that “there is no suchthing as a Republican road or a Democratic bridge.”Highway and transit programs are relatively bipar-tisan, and the issues do not usually pit Democratsversus Republicans. More commonly, the issuesrevolve around geographic regions, donor versus

Date Date DatePrevious Legislation Legislation

Reauthorization Passed Signed by HowExpired Congress President Late?

STAA September 30, 1982 December 23, 1982 January 6, 1983 ~ 3 Months

STURAA September 30, 1986 March 19, 1987 Vetoed by President; ~ 6 Monthsveto overridden

by Congress, April 2, 1987

ISTEA September 30, 1991 November 27, 1991 December 18, 1991 ~ 2 Months

TEA-21 September 30, 1997 May 22, 1998 June 9, 1998 ~ 8 Months

SAFETEA-LU September 30, 2003 July 29, 2005 August 10, 2005 ~ 22 Months

Were Past Reauthorizations Passed on Time?

Rep. James Oberstar speaks at a press conference organized by theAmerican Society of Civil Engineers, September 4, 2003, toannounce the updated Report Card on America’s Infrastructure. As

a Congressional Fellow and staff member, author Upchurch assistedin the preparation of speeches and remarks by members ofCongress on transportation-related issues.


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

15

donee states, or whether state or local governmentswill have control over decisions to spend federaldollars. The T&I Committee has a reputation asone of the most bipartisan in the House.

Importance of Research Transportation research needs champions in thelegislative arena. Some Members and some staff rec-ognize and appreciate that investments in researchare investments in the future economy, efficiency,and productivity of the transportation system—they should be congratulated for their foresight.

One of the major concerns in the reauthorizationdebate was the great disparity between the annualtransportation investment needs cited in the U.S.Department of Transportation’s Conditions and Per-formance Report and current revenues. The commonresponse of many players in reauthorization was thatspending more and more money was a necessity.

Transportation needs are great, revenues are lim-ited, and building and maintaining infrastructureare effective uses of revenue and resources. In thepolitical world of two-year terms, constructionoften appears to have a quicker payoff and returnthan investments in research—with the politicaldividends of public visibility and improved trans-portation service.

An alternative response to the disparity betweenneeds and revenues is to stretch the dollars to domore. Research is a way to do that. Research helpsuse available resources more effectively, reducing theimbalance between revenues and needs.

For example, if we can design and build a pave-ment that will last 20 years instead of 10, if we canbuild bridges that require less maintenance, and ifwe can develop a less expensive construction tech-nique, we can accomplish more with the availablerevenue. These outcomes, however, are the result ofinvestment in research but are equivalent to addi-tional revenue.

Getting InvolvedIn the legislative arena, therefore, continued pro-motion of the benefits of investment in transporta-tion research is necessary. Transportationprofessionals should be more involved in the pol-icy-making process and in the development of leg-islation. Transportation professionals need to beproactive and not sit back to let others make theseimportant decisions.

Transportation professionals are well trained inthe technical aspects of their specialties. For exam-ple, transportation engineers can determine the besttiming of a traffic signal to optimize traffic flow andcan design the thickness of a pavement to handle

24,000 vehicles per day with 18 percent heavytrucks. But our education has not attuned us to theimportance of policy and legislation.

Why should transportation professionals beinterested in policy? We care that 42,000 people dieeach year in traffic accidents in the United States.We care that the average urban American spends 62hours per year in congested traffic. We care that thequality of the air may trigger asthma in our childrenor grandchildren. These are some of the reasonsthat we should care about government policy andthe development of legislation.

We know and understand the issues, our careersare focused on transportation, and we deal with theissues every day. We can offer to serve as resources ontransportation issues for city councils, state legisla-tures, and Congress. All transportation professionalscan play a role in policy making and legislation.

My experience as a Congressional Fellow showedthat policy and legislation have a profound impact onthe transportation community; the experience alsoshowed what transportation professionals can do toserve society. Transportation professionals must beproactive in participating in the development of policyand in the creation of legislation. We have much tocontribute that can lead to policy and legislation thatwill be more effective in improving the quality of life.

How to Keep Up-to-Date on Policy and Legislative

Issues and the Actions of Congress

Several organizations regularly report onlegislative activity. Following are a few ofthe electronic newsletters that focus ontransportation legislation and policy issues:

The American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officialspublishes AASHTO Journal WeeklyTransportation Report each Friday athttp://news.transportation.org/journal.aspx.

The American Society of CivilEngineers publishes This Week inWashington on most Fridays atwww.asce.org/pressroom/news/grwk/index.cfm.

The Institute of TransportationEngineers periodically publishesWashington Weekly at www.ite.org.


TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

16

The authors carried outthe bridge research at theAASHO Road Test andall are members of theNational Academy ofEngineering. Fenves isProfessor Emeritus ofCivil Engineering,Carnegie MellonUniversity, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and GuestResearcher, NationalInstitute of Standardsand Technology,Gaithersburg, Maryland.Fisher is ProfessorEmeritus of CivilEngineering, LehighUniversity, Bethlehem,Pennsylvania. Viest isPresident, IMVConsulting, Bethlehem,Pennsylvania.

Tests in the early 1920s and later studiesshowed that the service life of a highwaypavement is related to the magnitude andfrequency of the wheel loads, to the char-

acteristics of the pavement and its substrate, and tothe environment. Efforts to quantify these relation-ships led the American Association of State HighwayOfficials1 (AASHO) to conduct the historic Road Testin the late 1950s.

Contributions from the 48 contiguous states,Hawaii, the District of Columbia, and the territory ofPuerto Rico financed this major undertaking. The U.S.Department of Defense provided a unit of 300 to 400soldiers to drive the test vehicles. The total cost of theproject was approximately $27 million, including $12million for research, $12 million for construction, and$3 million in contributed services.

The Highway Research Board2 (HRB) was responsi-ble for the project’s administration and direction. Advi-sory committees and panels reported to the NationalAdvisory Committee, chaired by Professor K. B. Woods,Head of the School of Civil Engineering at Purdue Uni-versity. Day-to-day direction of the work was theresponsibility of Project Director Walter B. McKendrick,Jr., and Chief Engineer William N. Carey, Jr.

Technical personnel reporting to Carey includedresearch engineers in charge of the four principalbranches: Alvin C. Benkelman, flexible pavements;Frank H. Scrivner, rigid pavements; Ivan M. Viest,bridges; and Paul E. Irick, data processing and analy-sis. Personnel included permanent staff and engineers-

in-training assigned to the project by the Bureau ofPublic Roads3 (BPR) for 6 months. Interested agenciesand organizations also delegated consultants andobservers to the Road Test.

Adding BridgesAt the request of the AASHO Committee on Bridgesand Structures, the plan to test asphaltic and concretepavements was expanded in scope in December 1951to include bridges. The structures were to be designedas case studies of the effect of repeated overstress onthe service life of highway bridges.

The bridge research was the brainchild of threemembers of the HRB Bridge Committee: E. L. Erick-son, Chief of the BPR Bridge Division; Glen S. Paxson,Bridge Engineer of the Oregon State Highway Com-mission; and Chester P. Siess, Research Associate Pro-

BRIDGES of the AASHO Road Test

1 Now the American Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials.

2 Now the Transportation Research Board. 3 Now the Federal Highway Administration.

A Unique and Historic Research Endeavor S . J . F E N V E S , J . W . F I S H E R , A N D I . M . V I E S T

Pouring slab for test bridge.


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

17

fessor of Civil Engineering at the University of Illi-nois. At the HRB 1951 annual meeting, the committeedeveloped the proposal for including case studies ofordinary slab-and-beam highway bridges in theAASHO Road Test.

The final plan for the Road Test included 16 short-span test bridges representing in simplified form thetypes of bridges commonly built on the U.S. highwaysystem. A Subcommittee on Bridges was appointed aspart of the Working Committee of the AASHO Com-mittee on Highway Transport.

The subcommittee selected the design variablesand criteria for the test bridges, which included eightbridges with steel beams, four with prestressed con-crete beams, and four with reinforced concrete T-beamconstruction. BPR designed the bridges with steelbeams; the Portland Cement Association designed thebridges with concrete beams. The subcommitteereviewed the final designs.

Construction and AdjustmentsThe AASHO Road Test facility was located a short dis-tance northwest of Ottawa, Illinois, and 80 milessouthwest of Chicago, on the right-of-way of thefuture Interstate 80. Construction of the temporarytest facility started in August 1956.

The first concrete for bridge foundations was caston October 5, 1956, and the last concrete on May 28,1957. The erection of beams commenced in June andwas completed by the end of November. Roadwayslabs for bridges with steel and prestressed concretebeams were cast from August 1957 to April 1958. Thesuperstructures for the reinforced concrete bridgeswere cast in August and September 1957.

Vehicles first crossed over the test bridges onAugust 29, 1958. Regular test traffic began on Novem-ber 5, 1958, and ended on December 3, 1960.

Early in the testing, four of the steel beam bridgesfailed. Safety cribs then were placed for support underall bridges before the beginning of the test traffic, withenough clearance to permit unrestricted deflectionsunder loading, as well as inspection of the underside.

Two of the failed bridges were replaced, increasingthe total of the test bridges to 18. Regular test trafficbegan on the two replacement bridges on June 20,1959. Both bridges survived the remaining period ofthe test traffic.

Conducting Additional TestsDynamic tests of the bridges were conducted from fall1958 to October 1960, in cooperation with the Uni-versity of Illinois. Bridge testing continued after thecompletion of the regular test traffic, first with accel-erated fatigue tests and then with tests that increasedthe loads until the bridge’s failure.

The fatigue tests added to the number of maxi-mum stress cycles accumulated in the regular test traf-fic. The tests with increasing loads were conducted todetermine the greatest loads that could cross a bridge,as well as the mode of failure for each bridge type. Allbridge testing was completed by June 12, 1961.

The Advisory Panel on Bridges and the SpecialCommittee on Dynamic Behavior of Test Bridges, bothchaired by Paxson, guided the bridge research. Mem-bers included Erickson and and state bridge engineersW. C. Hopkins, Maryland State Roads Commission;and O. L. Kipp and A. E. LaBonte, Minnesota Depart-ment of Highways; university professors Siess and A.S. Veletsos of Illinois, B. Thürlimann of Lehigh, and J. Locations of test bridges.

Cribbing placed belowtest bridges.


M. Biggs of Massachusetts Institute of Technology;and Road Test staff Carey and Viest.

Bridge TypesThe AASHO Road Test included six test loops of twodouble-lane tangents with a variety of pavements.Turnarounds at each end of a tangent permitted con-tinuous test traffic. The test bridges were one-lane,single-span structures. Groups of four bridges wereplaced at the beginning of the pavement test tangentson the two loops that carried the heaviest truck traffic.

All four bridges in a group were supported by aconcrete substructure of two abutments and one pieron spread footings. Each superstructure consisted ofthree identical beams supported on steel bearings,fixed on the center pier, permitting expansion at the

abutments. The 50-foot beams carried a reinforcedconcrete slab 6.5 inches thick and 15 feet wide. A 12-by-12-inch timber curb—two pieces spliced loosely atmidspan—was bolted to the outside edge of the slab.

The steel beams varied from bridge to bridge inthe size of the cross section, in the presence or absenceof partial-length cover plates on the bottom flange ofthe I-section, and in the presence or absence of com-posite interaction with the slab. The cover plates wereterminated according to the requirements of the stressanalysis—that is, they were cut off short of the sup-ports. In bridges with composite action, the slab wasconnected to the beams, eliminating differential move-ment along the interface of the two elements. Thephysical properties of the structural steel were close tothe minimum specified values.

TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

18

1951 In December, at the request of AASHO Committee onBridges and Structures, the scope of the AASHO RoadTest is expanded to include bridges.

1952 Types and number of bridges, design variables, and cri-teria are selected.

1953 Bureau of Public Roads designs the steel bridges; Port-land Cement Association designs the concrete bridges.

1954 Cost of bridge research is estimated at $386,000, includ-ing construction.

1955 Final scope of the project is limited to slab-and-beamtype bridges. Each bridge is to consist of three simple-span beams supporting a concrete slab. Bridges withsteel, reinforced concrete, and prestressed concretebeams are included.

1956 National Advisory Committee for theAASHO Road Test and Advisory Panel onBridges are established. Construction of the test road starts inAugust.First pour of concrete for bridge founda-tions, October 5.

1958 University of Illinois starts cooperative inves-tigation, Dynamic Studies of Bridges on theAASHO Road Test. Four steel bridges designed to sustainstresses approaching the yield point fail inpreliminary tests. Controlled test traffic is inaugurated, Octo-ber 15.

1959 Two of the four steel bridges that failed arereplaced with two new steel bridges. Regu-lar test traffic on the new bridges starts inJune.

1960 Regular test traffic ends November 30.

Accelerated fatigue tests ofbridges start in December.

1961 Bridge tests with increasingoverloads start in March.Accelerated fatigue tests arecompleted by end of May.Testing of bridges is com-pleted June 12.

1962 Bridge research results pub-lished in HRB Special Reports61D and 71.Conference on the AASHO Road Test convenes in St.Louis, Missouri, May 16–18.

Chronology of Bridge Research at the AASHO Road Test

Removing damaged steel from test bridge.


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

19

According to tension tests of coupons—or steel teststrips—taken from the flanges of the delivered beams,the mean yield point varied from 34.7 to 37.9 thousandpounds per square inch (ksi) for the original bridges andwas 32.5 ksi for the two replacement bridges. To pre-clude bonding with the slab on noncomposite bridges,the top surfaces of the steel beams were coated with amixture of graphite and linseed oil. Channel shear con-nectors were welded to the top flanges of compositebridges. On the replacement bridges, a partial-lengthcover plate was welded on the bottom and also on thetop flanges of the steel beams.

As noted, in composite bridges, differential move-ment does not occur along the interface of the slabsand the supporting beams. In noncomposite bridges,however, the slab deforms independently of the sup-porting beams and is free to slide along the top surfacesof the beams.

A commercial precaster in Springfield, Illinois,manufactured the prestressed concrete beams. Allhad the same cross section but with differences inprestressing steel and in the details of the end anchor-ages. Two bridges were posttensioned and two werepretensioned.

The beams of the posttensioned bridges were rein-forced with draped parallel-wire cables. The cableswere made up of ten 0.192-inch wires enclosed in aflexible steel conduit, secured by Freyssinet anchor-ages, and grouted. Each beam had four of these ten-dons in the lower-stressed bridge and six in thehigher-stressed one.

The pretensioned beams were reinforced withstraight 3/8-inch, 7-wire strands anchored by bond.Each beam had 16 strands in the lower-stressed and 20in the higher-stressed bridge. All other features—suchas the reinforcement of the relatively thin web con-

necting the two flanges of an I-section, the connectionof the beams to the slab, and the slabs—were the samein all of the prestressed concrete bridges.

The reinforced concrete bridges were constructedwith monolithic T-beams. The cross section of the fourbridges differed only in the details of the principalreinforcement. The stems of the T-beams were rein-forced in tension with two layers of standard deformedreinforcing bars: three No. 11 bars in the bottom layerand two No. 9 bars in the upper layer. In addition, oneNo. 8 bar was placed in the upper layer of each stemon the lower-stressed bridges. The web reinforcement,slabs, and diaphragms were the same for all the rein-forced concrete bridges.

Tests with Repeated StressesBefore the test traffic, regular test vehicles made specialruns over all bridges to collect initial data on stressesand deformations. These reference tests were repeatedat 6-month intervals.

Generally only small changes were observed inthe stresses; nonetheless, the deflections of all bridges

Loaded truck crosses testbridge. Bridge trailerthat housed datarecorders is at right.

Installing sensor beneath a bridge. Sensors wereconnected to data recording equipment in trailer.

Amplifiers and recording oscillographs in bridgetrailer.


TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

20

increased with time. The increase was generally 5 to16 percent in steel bridges and 18 to 35 percent inconcrete bridges. The changes in deflections indi-cated decreasing stiffness, probably the result ofcracking in the concrete slabs and concrete beams.Progressive cracking was observed as the test vehicletrips accumulated.

Tests of steel beams with partial-length cover platesdemonstrated that the section at the end of a coverplate—and by implication at other stress raisers ofsimilar configuration—can be critical in fatigue crack-ing. By the end of the regular test traffic, all steelbridges with partial-length cover plates had at least onefatigue crack.

In the reinforced concrete bridges designed forhigh stress, two bars broke in the exterior beam after730,000 cycles. The fractures seemed to occur sud-denly. An examination of the reinforcing bars afterbridge failure, however, revealed incipient cracksshort distances away from the breaks. The crackgrowth, therefore, must have been gradual, leading tothe fractures.

In the prestressed concrete bridges subjected to

tensile stress lower than the modulus of rupture, somefatigue cracking of concrete was detected during thetest traffic. This fatigue cracking, however, had noobservable effects on the overall behavior of the testbridges, except for an increase in deflections.

The number of stress cycles for the fatigue crackingof steel beams with partial-length cover plates and forthe fracture of reinforcing bars in reinforced concretebridges was compared with laboratory fatigue data forsimilar specimens. The results indicated that with anestimate of the magnitude and the number of repeti-tions of stress, laboratory fatigue data for componentelements can forecast—within reasonable limits—theservice life of a bridge until fatigue failure.

Accelerating FatigueThe AASHO Road Test bridge research demonstratedthat consideration of fatigue should be integrated intothe design requirements for bridges on the highwaysystem. Furthermore, the findings suggested a simpli-fied method for fatigue design, but systematic labora-tory tests were needed to develop practicalrequirements. The tests were performed later at LehighUniversity under the National Cooperative HighwayResearch Program (NCHRP).

After the conclusion of the regular test traffic inDecember 1960, 7 of the 13 surviving test bridgeswere subjected to accelerated fatigue tests. A mechan-ical oscillator was applied to the bridges at an ampli-tude that approximated the maximum stress and therange of the fluctuating stress at the critical sectionduring the test traffic. The vibration continued untilbridge failure or until 1.5 million stress cycles—com-parable to the number of cycles accumulated duringthe test traffic, with each trip of a regular test vehiclecounted as one stress cycle.

The accelerated fatigue tests were equivalent to lab-oratory fatigue tests and differed from the tests underregular test traffic. Most of the differences, however,

Above, left: Mechanicaloscillator on a bridge.Above, right: Vibratingtruck on bridge.

Special vehicle duringtest to failure withincreasing loads.


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

21

could be interpreted analytically or were minor. For the bridges that failed by fatigue, the number

of stress cycles applied in the accelerated tests wassmall in relation to the number of vehicle trips. Theeffect of the differences between the two types of testson the findings, therefore, was negligible.

Dynamic Load TestsThe dynamic amplification—or impact—of vehicleloads has been a longstanding concern in bridgedesign. A simple formula relates the impact factor tothe length of the bridge.

Research to develop comprehensive, yet easy-to-use, impact provisions for highway bridges has a longhistory. The AASHO Road Test site, only a 3-hourdrive from the University of Illinois at Urbana, pro-vided the Civil Engineering Department the opportu-nity to extend an active program of research on bridgeimpact from model tests and numerical simulations tofull-size vehicles running on nearly full-size bridges.

The university and HRB established a cooperativeresearch project, with Siess and Veletsos as principalinvestigators. Assistant Professor Robert K. L. Wenserved as the first program manager, succeeded in thefall of 1958 by Steven J. Fenves, an instructor.

Implementing Dynamic Tests The University of Illinois team developed the tests,which were reviewed and approved by the SpecialCommittee on Dynamic Behavior of the Test Bridgesand were performed by the Bridge Research group.The group ran approximately 1,900 tests from Octo-ber 1958 through October 1960 on all bridge types,using 14 types of vehicles at speeds from 10 to 50miles per hour.

The dynamic tests explored a range of parametersfor bridge vehicles—such as speed, weight, frequency,and deflection ratios—and examined influencing fac-tors, such as initial bridge and vehicle oscillations,eccentric loading, and the effect of inoperative vehiclesprings. Qualitative and quantitative evaluations andcomparisons were made in two formats: time histories,with the dynamic amplification of displacement andstrain plotted against the vehicle position; and spectra,with the peak responses of interest plotted against thespeed parameter.

Additional characterization tests on the bridgesexamined static loads and loads on vehicles travelingat a crawl speed of 3 miles per hour. Characterizationtests of static loading on pavements included vehicleswith normal and inoperative springs. The behaviormodels and testing methods for bridges were wellestablished then, but the behavior of vehicles waslargely unknown.

The static loading tests established the bilinear

load-deflection characteristics of the vehicle leafsprings—initially the springs act as a single beam, thenafter overcoming the interleaf friction, each leafdeforms independently. The dynamic tests of vehicleson pavements primarily served to evaluate and cali-brate the tire pressure gauges and the trailer-mountedrecording mechanism developed by the Road Testinstrumentation staff.

The analytical model for comparison with theexperimental test results was sophisticated at the time,running on the University of Illinois’ high-speed auto-matic computer, ILLIAC, which had 1,000 words—or5 kilobytes—of storage.

Test ResultsThe dynamic tests confirmed all of the theoretical pre-dictions about the bridges: that the bridges acted assimply supported beams; that noncomposite steel, pre-stressed, and reinforced concrete bridges exhibited dif-ferent characteristics under load than in free vibration;and that age—that is, the number of regular load appli-cations—reduces structural stiffness, except in com-posite steel bridges. Surface irregularities on theapproaches and on the bridge had pronounced effects.

The major accomplishment of the dynamic testson the AASHO Road Test bridges was the calibrationof the analytical model to functioning bridges andvehicles.

Load testing.

AASHO Road Test ProjectDirector Walter B.McKendrick, Jr. (right)joins National Academyof Sciences officials on aninspection tour of thebridge project.


Other Tests and StudiesFour steel bridges, four prestressed concrete bridges,and two reinforced concrete bridges survived the testswith repeated loads and were available for tests thatincreased the loads until the bridge’s failure. The testsstudied the bridge’s response to loads that approachedcapacity, to determine the bridge’s manner of failureunder moving loads, and to provide data for checkingtheories about ultimate strength.

In each test, the load would cross the bridge 30times. The load then was increased for another 30crossings. The procedure was repeated until the con-crete slab was crushed, or the principal tension steelwas fractured, or an already extreme permanent set—

or deformation—at midspan continued to increasewith each successive trip of the vehicle.

The tests with increasing loads were unique. Notests similar in scope have been performed since thenon individual bridges. As Erickson observed, “[The]bridge tests in the Road Test program…have giveninformation [about] the effect of overload on highwaystructures. Certainly it was demonstrated that over-loading bridges sufficiently is going to wreck them.”

HRB Special Report 61D, The AASHO Road TestReport 4: Bridge Research, describes seven additionaltests and studies carried out during the project. Thespecial post-traffic tests, for example, were carried outon pavements and bridges at the request of the Depart-ment of Defense, which was actively involved in thetesting, to study the effects on bridge response of (a)tire pressure and tire design, (b) commercial con-struction equipment, (c) special suspension systems,and (d) military vehicles.

Other studies considered the properties of the con-crete and steel in the test bridges and the develop-ment of a bond-breaking agent to allow treatment ofthe top flanges of the steel beams in noncompositesteel bridges. A mixture of linseed oil and graphitewas found effective for preventing a bond.

The materials tests investigated the outdoor creepand shrinkage of concrete in prestressed concrete

The Road Test’s composite steel beam bridge was designedto sustain the stress of 35,000 pounds per square inch at

the ends of the partial-length cover plates that were weldedto the bottom flanges of the rolled steel sections. The bridgesustained all 558,400 trips of the assigned test vehicles.

By the end of the test traffic, fatigue cracks were visible at fivelocations. Three were confined to the areas around the toe of thewelds connecting the cover plates. One extended from the weldto the near edge of the flange and another extended the fulldepth of the bottom flange from the edge to the web.

Additional applications of critical stress with a mechanicaloscillator caused further growth in the cracks. One crack extendedslowly toward the web. At 25,800 oscillator cycles, the crackreached about 6 inches into the web; a complete fracture of thesteel section occurred after 47,500 oscillator cycles—that is, a totalof 605,900 cycles of critical stress.

Two reinforced concrete bridges designed for a tensile stressof 40,000 pounds per square inch also were subjected to addi-tional critical stresses with an oscillator. The tests proceededsmoothly for more than 170,000 post-traffic cycles. The responseof the strain gages at midspan of one of the bridges becameerratic at 172,600 cycles. An inspection after 174,000 cyclesrevealed two fractured reinforcing bars.

In the other bridge, the bar fracture was signaled by a loudnoise at 172,200 post-traffic cycles. One reinforced concretebridge sustained a total of 730,100 and the other 728,300 criticalstress cycles.

When Does a Bridge Fail from Fatigue?

Fatigue failure of reinforcing bars in a reinforced concrete bridge.

Two prestressed concretebridges after failureunder increasing loads.


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

23

beams; relaxation and fatigue tests of the prestressingsteel; fatigue tests of the reinforcing bars in the stemsof the reinforced concrete bridges; and determinationof the residual stresses and fatigue strength of struc-tural steel in the rolled sections of the steel bridges.

The results of the creep and shrinkage tests of con-crete cylinders, made from the same mix and at thesame time as the prestressed concrete beams, were notpublished.

Follow-UpThe development of fatigue cracks at the ends of par-tial-length cover plates on steel test bridges demon-strated the need for comprehensive experimentalstudies. At that time, only approximate design rela-tionships were available, relying on limited laboratorytests of small-scale samples. NCHRP initiated com-prehensive research to provide data for the design ofwelded bridges. A series of research projects was car-ried out at Lehigh University starting in 1967.

Additional studies followed in the 1970s, whenfatigue cracking was discovered in bridges on the high-way system. Some of the cracking in beams with par-tial-length cover plates occurred in bridges with aslittle as 13 years of service. Furthermore, fatigue crackswere discovered frequently at the ends of web stiffen-ers, when stopped short of the beam flange.

The new studies included variable-cycle loading,full-scale bridge attachments, detection and repair offatigue cracks, and an examination of large-scaleexperiments carried out worldwide in the 1970s and1980s. NCHRP published these studies in ninereports—seven on the tests carried out at Lehigh Uni-versity and two on tests at United States Steel Corpo-ration. A new set of design requirements appeared inthe 1986 American Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials (AASHTO) specifications.

Research on bridge dynamics has continued at theUniversity of Illinois, at the Federal Highway Adminis-tration’s Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center,and elsewhere. The analytical bridge model for the RoadTest bridges has been extended to continuous bridgesand to two-dimensional modeling. Two-dimensionalmodeling has allowed the consideration of bridge skew,lateral stiffness distribution, superelevation, the effect ofcentrifugal forces, and many other parameters.

Dynamic tests are performed sporadically as a partof other full-scale bridge tests, but no program hasmatched the scale and comprehensiveness of theAASHO Road Test. With the veracity and reliability ofanalytical models today, if the bridge behavior can beverified by static and low-speed crawl tests, the fulldynamic behavior predicted by the analytical modelsis accepted, at least for conventional dynamic effectson linearly elastic bridges.

A Unique ExperimentThe bridge experiment at the AASHO Road Test pro-vided insights into the behavior of highway bridgesunder the stresses caused by

Large volumes of truck traffic, Moving loads, and Extreme overloads.

Extensive fatigue tests conducted after the com-pletion of the Road Test studies have resulted in sim-ple, but comprehensive, design requirements thatshould ensure the satisfactory long-term performanceof welded steel bridges.

Because details of bridge dynamic behavior nowcan be ascertained by static and low-speed crawl testscombined with predictions from analytical models forall but the most unusual bridges, another experimen-tal program of the scale and comprehensiveness of thedynamic load tests at the AASHO Road Test is unlikely.The bridge experiment at the AASHO Road Test nearly50 years ago remains unique.

At the Road Test SiteIvan M. Viest, Bridge Research EngineerJohn W. Fisher, Assistant Bridge Research EngineerCharles F. Galambos, Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) Bridge EngineerJames H. Hatton, BPR Assistant Regional Bridge Engineer

Resident Staff Consultants and ObserversBert E. Colley, Portland Cement AssociationSamuel M. King, American Trucking AssociationsR. Ian Kingham, Canadian Good Roads Association

BPR TraineesDavid C. Briggs, Vernon Buchele, Jerry L. Budwig, Lloyd R. Cayes, GordonC. Hoxie, Kenneth D. Jaeger, Gerald N. Lind, Norman W. Loeffler, WilliamT. Medley, Gordon W. Million, Norman C. Mueller, Donald J. Philbrick,Richard A. Richter, John W. Schmidt, Robert E. Stanford

At the University of IllinoisChester P. Siess, Professor of Civil EngineeringAnestis S. Veletsos, Professor of Civil EngineeringRobert K. L. Wen, Assistant Professor of Civil EngineeringSteven J. Fenves, Instructor in Civil EngineeringTseng Huang, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering

Research Assistants in Civil EngineeringElton G. Endebrock, Norris L. Hickerson, Alfred Korn, Walter P. Moore,Richard L. Rolf

AASHO Road Test Bridge Engineering Researchers


TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

24

The author is editor ofthe quarterly newsletterTRAC Record and marketing consultant toTRAC, a program of theAmerican Association ofState Highway andTransportation Officials,Washington, D.C.

The American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials (AASHTO)created the nonprofit TRAC Program—which stands for transportation and civil

engineering—to improve the quality and the diversityof the professional transportation workforce.1 Thehands-on education outreach is designed for use inscience, math, technology, and social science classes.

TRAC engages students in solving real-world prob-lems, sends volunteer mentors into classrooms, andsupplies teachers with the needed materials, whileconnecting students in kindergarten through 12thgrade to the work world of transportation profession-als and civil engineers. The program aims to inspirestudents to consider careers in these fields.

Raising AwarenessSomeone once asked a group of businesspeople, “Whois the greatest basketball player of our time?” Someanswered Michael Jordan, others said Julius Erving orLarry Bird.

“Wrong,” was the reply. “The greatest playercould be the one kid who was never told he or shecould play.”

Similarly, the person who designs the world’s firstmagnetic levitation transit system or creates a life-sav-ing intelligent transportation system could be sitting ina classroom anywhere in the country or in the world.But without an awareness of transportation as a careeropportunity, that potential may never be realized.

“Getting the students excited about the field of trans-portation is our ultimate goal,” says TRAC Manager

Tate Jackson. Mentoring students—especially womenand minorities—is the principle that drives the pro-gram. Now in its 11th year, TRAC was one of the firsttransportation outreach programs in the United States.

1 TRAC is a trademark of AASHTO.

A student from Manor High School, near Austin,Texas, watches as a volunteer from Texas DOTprepares to load test a spaghetti bridge during theschool’s annual Spaghetti Bridge Competition.

Starting Students on the Transportation

and Civil Engineering TrackAASHTO’s TRAC Program

Leads by ExampleS H A R O N J . T I L L M A N


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

25

Guiding PrinciplesFour basic principles guide TRAC:

The professional and technical ranks of trans-portation and civil engineering have been in a steadydecline—young people must be encouraged to pur-sue careers in transportation.

National leadership from within the transpor-tation profession is needed to develop interest aboutthe field among a diverse population of precollegestudents, who are the transportation students andprofessionals of tomorrow.

Mentoring brings out a student’s potential andpresents career options not previously considered.

With the right tools, teachers and volunteerscan reach students with greater ease and greatereffectiveness.

“This program is contributing to workforce devel-opment, and it enables state departments of transpor-tation to contribute to the communities they serve,”notes John Horsley, Executive Director of AASHTO.“TRAC is a win–win achievement, bringing us closerto the public and the public closer to us.”

Horsley points out that TRAC builds on the federalGarrett A. Morgan Transportation and TechnologyFutures Program, which shares the goal of “attractingnew talent to the transportation industry.”

No national statistics are available on the makeupof the transportation labor force, but statistics on civilengineering provide a good indicator. According tothe Bureau of Labor Statistics, of the 293,000 civilengineers in the nation in 2004, 11.7 percent werewomen, 7.7 percent were African Americans, and 4.6percent were Hispanics. In comparison, the nationallabor pool of 139,252,000 employed persons for thesame year included 46.5 percent women, 10.7 per-cent African Americans, and 12.0 percent Hispanics.2

Professionals Band TogetherIn the late 1980s, AASHTO charged a committee todevelop a guide for recruiting civil engineering stu-dents. The target audience was college juniors andseniors.

The effort was addressing the shortage of civil engi-neers, but the underlying problem was that notenough young people were aware of civil engineeringin the first place. After developing the guide, the taskforce recommended that AASHTO launch an initiativeto attract young people to transportation and civilengineering careers—an initiative that would connectto high school and middle school students and conveyexcitement about the profession.

A task force developed an interactive approach torecapture the enthusiasm that most children havewhen they build things—like sand castles and blocktowers. What emerged was an on-the-job experiencethat took advantage of the emerging personal com-puter, incorporated hands-on learning, and includedrealistic planning and design problems based on trans-portation and civil engineering concepts. The taskforce theorized that if the engineering problems incor-porated practical applications of what students werelearning in math and science, teachers would be inter-ested in bringing the program into the classroom.

Working with these recommendations, AASHTO,the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), andthe National Cooperative Highway Research Program

2 Bureau of Labor Statistics. Household Data, 2004.www.bls.gov.

TRAC National Manager Tate Jackson (center) trainsvolunteer engineers on the TRAC activities in PuertoRico.

Math teacher RandyWormald (left) ofBelmont High School,Belmont, NewHampshire, reviews amap with studentsduring a TRAC activity.


TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

26

(NCHRP) launched TRAC in January 1991. Membersof AASHTO, FHWA, various professional societies,and other industry and minority organizations pro-vided financial support and participated on the pro-gram’s joint steering committee.

The AASHTO Special Committee on TRAC, com-prising state department of transportation (DOT)officials and AASHTO and FHWA employees, acts asan oversight board, making policy decisions andguiding the program (see sidebar, page 29). AASHTOadministers the TRAC Program, which benefits inseveral ways:

Resources—Through AASHTO, TRAC hasaccess to information currently used in the fieldand can present real situations to students, accu-rately portraying the work of the transportationprofession.

Organization—The TRAC national manage-ment staff is located at AASHTO’s Washington,D.C., headquarters, streamlining the program’sbusiness operations and strengthening manage-ment.

Networking—As the voice of the state DOTs,AASHTO is well connected with members of theindustry on many levels. TRAC has access to thesecontacts to raise awareness, gain funding, andrecruit volunteers.

At the State LevelTRAC reaches its target audience of students throughstate DOTs. After joining the program and paying theannual membership fee of $12,750, a state DOT estab-lishes a regional center to administer the program.

TRAC national headquarters provides guidance,marketing materials and services, training for volun-teers and teachers, curricula, and other services. Eachregional center is responsible for placing the programin schools, recruiting mentor teams, and maintainingand updating the TRAC Pacs, or education toolkits.

Most DOTs work closely with other governmentagencies, universities, nonprofit organizations, andprivate industry to implement TRAC. The Con-necticut TRAC Program, for example, is a partner-ship of the Connecticut Pre-Engineering Program(CPEP)3 and Connecticut DOT.

“[When TRAC was first implemented,] we hadthe curricula and the volunteers—all we needed wereschools to complete the circle,” notes programcomanager Ralph Phillips, Jr., Transportation Super-vising Engineer for Connecticut DOT. “CPEPbrought the schools and students to TRAC.”

CPEP and TRAC have similar core values andmissions. CPEP works with underrepresentedgroups to raise awareness of math, science, and engi-neering, and TRAC brings the work world of engi-neering to students.

“TRAC increases our ability to serve our mission,”says CPEP’s Glenn Cassis.

In the ClassroomThe TRAC Program is at work in 18 states,4 with asso-ciate programs in Puerto Rico, Tanzania, and SouthAfrica. Mississippi is an example of a state success.

In 2003, TRAC Mississippi received $1 millionfrom the state’s Transportation Commission tolaunch the program statewide. Mississippi becamethe first state to make TRAC part of the required cur-riculum. Seventh grade students in 187 publicschools use TRAC in Career Discovery classes.

Although the TRAC Program is well established atthe middle and high school levels, volunteers attendcareer days and similar activities at the elementaryschool level. Currently in development, TRAC K–4 isa series of lesson plans written by and for elementaryschool teachers. The kindergarten and first grade cur-riculum focuses on civil engineers as communityhelpers, then in the second through fourth grades thefocus is on civil structures—such as roads, bridges,and dams—as well as on basic problem solving.

At the core of the program is the TRAC Pac toolkit,which contains the equipment, software, programguides, and materials for classroom activities. Themost recent edition, TRAC Pac 2, consists of eighteducation modules, each comprising various activities,experiments, demonstrations, and projects with a linkto transportation.

The sponsoring state DOTs supply the modules tothe schools, which can choose the units that bestserve the students. Each module meets the National

www.cpep.org.

Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire,New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont,Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.

TRAC’s Highway Safetymodule emphasizesteamwork, as studentswork together to choosethe best solution to atraffic problem.

PH

OTO

GR

APH: K

IRK

FR

AN

KFU

RTH


3

4 Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland,

TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

27

Standards of Learning for Science Education, Tech-nology, Technological Literacy, Mathematics, andSocial Studies.

Students as InvestigatorsAll TRAC activities are hands-on and allow each stu-dent to work at his or her own pace. The students aregiven inspiration, guidance, and the proper tools;sometimes students must work in teams as transpor-tation professionals and engineers often do.

Students can build a working magnetic levitationtrain, measure the impacts of collisions, or build anentire electronic city and help it grow. Students of allages seek out and absorb information, formulate newways of solving problems, and learn that working inthe transportation field is fun, exciting, stimulating,challenging, and doable.

Randy Wormald, a mathematics teacher and cur-riculum coordinator for Grades 9 through 12 at Bel-mont High School, Belmont, New Hampshire, hasbeen using the TRAC Program since 2002 and hasdeveloped TRAC into one of the school’s most sought-after classes.

“Having taught math and computer education inNew Hampshire, the Virgin Islands, and Taiwan, I’veseen that all kids share the same qualities—they wantto learn, and the same things get them hooked,” heobserves. “An element of competition, either internalor external, plus hands-on learning and excitement,are keys to success when teaching children of anyage. TRAC is one of the rare programs that embod-ies all of these qualities—and it provides a careercomponent as a bonus.”

Teachers as FacilitatorsThe teacher acts as a facilitator as students explorethe lessons presented in the TRAC modules. Theteacher’s knowledge becomes a resource as the stu-dents investigate ways to approach the problems.Although the TRAC curriculum is self-contained,including lessons and activities, participation does notrequire the teacher to set aside a subject’s lesson plan.Instead, teachers can use TRAC to illustrate andbroaden concepts addressed in their curricula.

Tupelo Middle School Principal Linda Clifton wasan advocate for Mississippi’s statewide implementationof TRAC. She has noted a positive effect on standardizedtest scores since TRAC’s 1998 debut at her school.

“TRAC has caused my students’ scores on the mea-surement portion of the National Achievement test toincrease,” Clifton reports. “Because students areencouraged to apply math and science skills and to seethe relevance to everyday applications, they are doing

Components of the TRACPac 2 Bridge Buildermodule.

Students at LeonardtownHigh School in Maryland(photo, left) design andtest magnetic levitationcars for speed anddistance and (photo,right) study particlesedimentation ratesduring an activity fromthe HighwayDevelopment and theEnvironment module.

PH

OTO

GR

APH: K

IRK

FR

AN

KFU

RTH

PH

OTO

GR

APH: K

IRK

FR

AN

KFU

RTH

PH

OTO

GR

APH: K

IRK

FR

AN

KFU

RTH


TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

28

better on assessment tests—they score ‘well aboveaverage’ in language and math, and within the state,Tupelo Middle has a Level 5 rating, the highest aschool can receive.”

Engineers as GuidesThe engineers and transportation professionals whovolunteer for the TRAC Program serve as role models,mentors, and guides to the students. In manyinstances, this may be the first engineer the studentshave ever met.

Through presentations, experiences, and profes-sional expertise, the volunteers provide a real-worldlink to the TRAC curriculum, supplementing theteachers’ lessons. The volunteers visit the classrooms,sponsor field trips to job sites, present activities atDOT career days, and host TRAC competitions. To besuccessful, however, a state’s volunteer program needssupport from the highest levels of management.

Henry Hungerbeeler, retired director of MissouriDOT, was an early TRAC supporter. “Top DOT man-agement support of TRAC is key to the success of theprogram, regardless of the state,” he maintains. “Whenmanagement allows for staff to participate in volunteerefforts such as TRAC, the volunteers give more, andthe students get a great education and a positive viewof engineering and transportation careers.”

TRAC Pac 2 ModulesTRAC Pac 2 is the curriculum for students in Grades5 through 12. Most units serve a class of 25 studentsand include a teacher guide, volunteer tips, and aQuickTime™ movie of each activity, reducing theneed for training.5

Teachers can request only the modules that are rel-evant to their lesson plans. All of the activities in themodules are easily adapted to different grade levels,adding to the economy and efficiency of the materials.

Bridge Design. With the Bridge Design mod-ule, students practice the math and science conceptsthat a structural engineer uses to create a bridge. Theconcepts are presented individually, culminating inthe construction of the students’ own creations,applying algebra, geometry, and physics skills.

City Planning. The realistic computer soft-ware package SimCity® 40006 introduces studentsto urban design, problem solving, critical thinking,and group decision making through transportationplanning and zoning activities. Students work toimprove citizens’ quality of life through city rede-velopment, zoning, and new development, while

M anaged by the Transportation Research Board and spon-sored by the American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the National Coopera-tive Highway Research Program (NCHRP) has been involvedfrom the beginning in the AASHTO TRAC (Transportation andCivil Engineering) Program. The program was designed tointerest students, especially minorities and women, in thetransportation profession and civil engineering.

NCHRP research projects have helped assess the problem,have produced the initial content of the program, have pro-vided evaluations and guidance, and most recently haveupdated the modules and activities:

NCHRP Project 20-7, Task 41: AASHTO Guide for Recruit-ment and Retention of Transportation Professionals (1990),created the guide and developed pilot program material forthe then-evolving AASHTO TRAC program.

NCHRP Project 20-24(03), Expanding the Civil EngineeringPool (1994), produced NCHRP Report 347, Civil EngineeringCareers: Awareness, Retention, and Curriculum, and NCHRPReport 347, Part II, A User’s Guide for Awareness, Retention, and

Curriculum Programs. Both provided resource material to TRAC. NCHRP Project 20-24(03)A, Civil Engineering Careers in

Transportation: Outreach Program (1993), supported AASHTO’sdevelopment of prototype material for TRAC. A summary waspublished as NCHRP Research Results Digest 196, Revised,Unique, Hands-On Educational Program for High School Math-ematics and Science Classes.

NCHRP Project 20-07, Task 90: TRAC—The Next Genera-tion (1997), defined concepts for the next generation of hands-on equipment and activities, called TRAC Pac 2.

NCHRP Project 20-52, TRAC Pac 2: A Hands-On Educa-tional Program (2002), produced the modules and activitiesfor TRAC Pac 2 that were delivered to AASHTO for integrationinto the TRAC program.

Project 20-52(01), Implementing TRAC Pac 2: A Hands-OnEducational Program (2005), developed a set of marketing,promotional, and motivational tools to optimize the accep-tance and implementation of the TRAC Pac 2 program.

The author is Manager, National Cooperative HighwayResearch Program, TRB, Washington, D.C.

Research Keeps TRAC on the Right TrackC R A W F O R D J E N C K S

5 QuickTime is a trademark of Apple Computer.6 Copyright 1999, Electronic Arts, Inc. All rights reserved.

Student tests a magneticlevitation car.


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

29

meeting the challenges of cost, time, and naturaldisasters.

Highway Development and the Environment.Students learn about erosion, sedimentation, and fil-tration from the perspective of a highway engineer.Assuming the role of an environmental specialist,students examine the environmental issues involvedwith highway planning. This module brings togetherthe sciences and social studies.

Highway Safety. Students learn about thephysics of momentum and impulse in relation totraffic accidents, including the effect of a collisionwith a fixed object and the impact of a vehicle hittinga crash barrier. In addition, the module covers traf-fic engineering concepts such as congestion, trafficvolume, and sight distance in relation to safe speed.

Magnetic Levitation. Students put magneticlevitation cars through their paces while learningabout Newton’s first and second laws of motion—concepts that civil engineers rely on when designingnew roadways or developing intelligent transporta-tion systems (ITS).

Motion and the Transportation Engineer.Through transportation engineering methods, stu-dents learn the principles of motion, energy, and New-ton’s laws of motion, as well as skills for scientificinquiry. Divided into two sections, covering momen-tum and impulse, the module includes lecture demon-strations and hands-on laboratory activities with thelatest data collection hardware and software.

Roadway Design and Construction. Throughactivities, students learn about data visualization, thelaw of sines, the societal impact of transportationsystems, and computer algorithms. The topics show-case the range of professional disciplines involved asa road project proceeds from design to construction.Students apply classroom theory to transportationissues that affect their lives daily.

Traffic Technology. Concepts that serve as thebuilding blocks for physics, electrical theory, andcomputer programming—including basic linearmotion, basic circuits, and Boolean logic—are pre-sented. Traffic Technology introduces students to thefundamentals of highway safety and traffic signaldesign. Reaction time, braking distance, computerprogramming and spreadsheets, and ITS technologyare also covered.

Beyond the ClassroomExpanding beyond the classroom walls and the tradi-tional school year, TRAC and AASHTO sponsor anannual Design–Build Competition, now in its thirdyear. The competition requires solving a transportationproblem from one of the eight modules, within specificparameters.

The competition is open to TRAC students inGrades 9 through 11. Finalists present their projects atthe AASHTO annual spring meeting and are judged bythe Standing Committee on Highways, which con-sists of chief engineers and administrators from acrossthe United States. This year students are solving aRunaway Truck Ramp problem based on the module,Motion and the Transportation Engineer.

The FHWA Office of Civil Rights has requestedthat TRAC Programs take on an expanded role at thenational Summer Transportation Institutes (STI), heldon college campuses around the country to introducemiddle and high school students to careers in trans-portation. Pending funding, the TRAC national officewould assist states in the start-up of STIs and wouldprovide on-site personnel and training.

As TRAC moves forward and continues to touchstudents, teachers, and volunteers around the world,the goals remain.

“Developing technical, engineering, and sciencetalent remains critical for the future of transportationand civil engineering,” says Jack Basso, AASHTO’sDirector of Management and Business Development.“To ensure the TRAC Program’s continued success, wemust develop a system to gain empirical data on grad-uation rates and enrollment figures. Additionalresources and funding also are critical—we will beable to extend TRAC’s outreach through grants andfundraising and by developing partnerships.”

TRAC Steering CommitteeNormetha Goodrum, Deputy Administrator, Maryland State Highway

Administrator, Region 1 RepresentativeHarry Lee James, Deputy Executive Director and Chief Engineer,

Mississippi Department of Transportation, Region 2 RepresentativePete Rahn, Director, Missouri Department of Transportation, Region 3 Rep-

resentativeRoberta Tisdale, Personnel Director, Michigan Department of

Transportation, Region 3 RepresentativeGrant Levi, Deputy Director for Engineering, North Dakota Department of

Transportation, Region 4 RepresentativeHannah Whitney, Assistant Executive Director, AASHTO, Secretary

TRAC StaffTate Jackson, National TRAC Manager, 202-624-5814, [email protected] Johnson, National TRAC Coordinator, 202-624-5403,

[email protected]

444 North Capitol Street, Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001Fax: 202-624-7788

www.trac.net

Who’s Who at TRAC


TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

30

The author, who retiredfrom the New JerseyDepartment ofTransportation in 2002,is a full-time consultantbased in Trenton. He isan Emeritus Member ofthe TRB Management ofQuality AssuranceCommittee.

One of the nation’s most valuable assetsis the network of roads and bridgeslinking suppliers of goods and serviceswith customers. The nation’s well-

being depends on the highway system’s condition,which in turn relates to the quality of construction.

Highway quality assurance has evolved overapproximately four decades and encompasses all theprograms and procedures for controlling and accept-ing construction quality. For the most part, the pro-cedures in use today are fair and effective, but thatwas not always the case. As a former statistical engi-neer with the New Jersey Department of Transporta-tion (DOT), I spent most of my career in qualityassurance; following are some of the more importantlessons learned.

Real-World VariabilityThe first of these lessons occurred while I was study-ing for a civil engineering degree. The lesson wastaught not by one of my professors, but by a highwayinspector who had few academic credentials. I wasworking in the summers on highway constructionfor New Jersey DOT when one of the inspectors hadan interesting idea: “Let’s send two identical samplesto the department laboratory to see if they come outthe same.”

We carefully prepared two samples as nearly alikeas possible and sent them to the laboratory. I do notrecall the exact results, but they differed considerablymore than we had expected. That was my first expo-sure to the real world of variability, and I sensed thatthis must be an important aspect of engineering.

A Brief History of HighwayQuality Assurance

R I C H A R D M . W E E D

P O I N T O F V I E W

NOTE: Point of View pre-sents opinions of con-tributing authors ontransportation issues.The views expressed arenot necessarily those ofTRB or TR News. Read-ers are encouraged tocomment in a letter to theeditor on the issues andopinions presented.


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

31

Today we understand that there are several possi-ble explanations for differences between tests of iden-tical samples. Maybe the samples were not as identicalas we thought; maybe the samples were handled dif-ferently during transportation; or maybe the sampleswere tested by different operators, or on different test-ing equipment, or on different days.

But despite the potential sources of variability, sam-ples of this type are used routinely to make importantdecisions about the acceptability of the constructionitems they represent. If this ever-present variabilitycauses substandard work to be erroneously accepted,performance problems will arise that are likely toprove both costly and inconvenient. If satisfactorywork is mistakenly rejected, completion of the projectis delayed, the contractor is treated unfairly, and theresult may be increases in future bid prices. Obviously,we need to minimize both types of mistakes.

Road Test ResultsAt roughly the same time I became acquainted withthe realities of variability, the highway profession waslearning a similar lesson from the American Associa-tion of State Highway Officials (AASHO) Road Test.This elaborate experiment alerted everyone that high-way construction was far more variable than anyonehad realized and, in some cases, was of lesser qualitythan anyone had recognized.

The reports from the AASHO Road Test used sta-tistical measures to describe construction quality, anda few engineers saw that these same measures mightoffer a better way to specify what was desired than didthe materials-and-methods specifications then in use.Not only would a statistical approach afford greaterfreedom to the construction industry to use its con-siderable skills and innovative abilities to achieve thedesired results, but the approach also would provide avalid, quantitative way for highway agencies to judgethe acceptability of the finished product.

The approach also would offer legal advantages,because in some cases, courts of law had not allowedhighway agencies to reject defective work over which

the agencies had exercised primary control via mate-rials-and-methods specifications. Another advantagewould be the creation of valid databases that eventu-ally could improve understanding of the relation-ships between construction quality and ultimateperformance.

This new approach of basing construction specifi-cations on statistical concepts clearly was a win-winsituation for all concerned. As engineers gained famil-iarity with statistical techniques, the use became morefrequent and more effective. Growing pains wereinevitable, but these early efforts turned out wellenough that within a few years many other highwayagencies had followed suit.

Analyzing the RisksOne of the most significant realizations from this earlywork was that the analysis of operating characteristic(OC) curves and of expected payment (EP) curveswas an indispensable part of statistical quality assur-ance. Only through the study of these curves can twocritical risks be known and controlled at suitably lowlevels: the highway agency’s risk of accepting defectivework, and the contractor’s risk of having good workpenalized or rejected.

This offers both technical and diplomatic advan-tages. The correction of faulty specifications in theoffice before reaching the field greatly increases thelikelihood of making good acceptance decisions.Assuring that statistical specifications perform cor-rectly and fairly greatly improves the working rela-tionship between the highway agency and theconstruction industry.

Statistical Quality MeasuresThe first specifications of this type applied simple sta-tistical measures, often the mean—or average—ofthe test values. As more construction data becameavailable for analysis, engineers realized that themean by itself was not always an adequate predictorof performance. Two lots of material having the samemean might have markedly different levels of vari-ability and, consequently, substantial differences inthe amounts of substandard material and in theexpected levels of performance.

The next step was to look for statistical qualitymeasures that would take variability into account. Themoving average was out—it was as insensitive as themean was to variability. In addition, the moving aver-age was influenced by adjoining lots of material, mak-ing any type of risk analysis extremely difficult.

A few agencies tried average absolute deviation,which has never been studied thoroughly as a formalstatistical measure and is not well suited for single-sided specifications for which a unique target value


TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

32

cannot be defined. The conformal index also was pro-posed, but the drawbacks are essentially the same asthose of the average absolute deviation.

This left as the logical choices percent defective(PD) and percent within limits (PWL)—which aredifferent representations of the same thing. PD/PWL isa standard statistical measure, extensively studied,known to be an unbiased estimator, capable of han-dling single-sided and double-sided applications, andwith published tables for use. For these reasons,PD/PWL continues to have the strongest intuitiveappeal to most writers on statistical quality assurance.

Bonus ProvisionsAnother key milestone in the development of highwayacceptance procedures was the advent of bonus pro-visions. The earliest statistical specifications eitherpaid full price or assessed some degree of pay reduc-tion, depending on the deficiency in quality. Highwayengineers eventually realized that if withholding pay-ment for substandard work made sense, offering somedegree of monetary incentive for superior work alsomade sense. The idea was to encourage and compen-sate contractors whose attention to quality controlproduced work that substantially exceeded the speci-fied levels of quality and, as a result, could be expectedto provide above-average performance.

Several arguments support an incentive approach.Once OC/EP curve analyses became more commonpractice, some degree of bonus provision was recog-nized as necessary for the long-term average pay fac-tor to be 100 percent for work exactly at the leveldefined as acceptable. The natural variability of statis-tical measures often produces quality estimates thatare either too low or too high. Bonus provisions allowthe resulting underpayments or overpayments to bal-ance in a way that turns out to be fair and equitable.

Other benefits of bonus provisions include moti-vation for higher quality work, improved relationswith the construction industry, and the likelihoodthat better contractors more often will be the suc-cessful bidders—because contractors more assuredof receiving bonus payments can afford to bid lower.Because of these benefits, a substantial majority ofhighway agencies now use bonus provisions in oneform or another.

Performance-RelatedSpecificationsA goal in highway specification writing is to relatebasic engineering properties—for example, theresilient modulus of pavement—directly to perfor-mance, so that specifications only state appropriatelevels of appropriate properties. That goal remainselusive, however, and efforts have focused on devel-

oping performance-related specifications (PRS)based on mathematical models linking quality char-acteristics—such as air voids in asphalt concrete orthe compressive strength of portland cement con-crete—or statistical quality measures, such as PD orPWL, to performance and longevity. Typically, thesespecifications include pay schedules developedthrough life-cycle cost analysis.

PRS developmental efforts have produced adichotomy of approaches. On the one hand, highlycomplex national studies have produced sophisti-cated computer programs like HMASPEC and PCC-SPEC, based on mechanistic design principles,life-cycle cost analyses, and various decision-makingprocesses. On the other hand, a few state transporta-tion agencies, including New Jersey DOT, areengaged in grassroots efforts to use their own data tocreate simplified mathematical models with the sameunderlying scientific principles.

The methods developed by the national studiesoffer the potential for greater precision and accuracy,but at the expense of considerably greater datarequirements and complexity. The grassroots modelsare more empirical, but their simplicity and ease ofbeing tailored to local conditions make them attrac-tive from a practical standpoint. States that wouldlike to convert statistical specifications to actual PRSwill have to decide which of the two profoundly dif-ferent approaches to take. The optimal approach maylie somewhere between these two extremes.

Simple but ScientificMuch has been accomplished in the field of highwayquality assurance, but much remains to be done. Aslight variation of the KISS rule has served New JerseyDOT well: Keep It Simple but Scientific. The guidancemay be useful to other agencies as they continue toadvance the state of the art of PRS.

In other words, start with the simplest approachthat makes scientific sense, and switch to somethingmore complex only if there is evidence or data show-ing that the simple method is not working. As a sta-tistical practitioner always concerned about theaccumulation of error in any complex system, I advo-cate this practical approach for designing any engi-neering process.


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

33

The author is a TechnicalSpecialist at the Councilfor Scientific andIndustrial Research,Pretoria, South Africa.He served as loan staff tothe TransportationResearch Board inWashington, D.C., in2004, and currently is onassignment at theUniversity of CaliforniaPavement ResearchCenter in Davis.

R E S E A R C H P AY S O F F

In many areas of southern Africa, flat, featurelessterrain makes the location of road constructionmaterials difficult. Thick covers of sand addcomplications in the arid and semi-arid areas of

the west and in the coastal plains of the east. As part of a larger study, various methods were

investigated to locate road construction materials.These included traditional techniques with maps, aer-ial photographs, and satellite images, as well as someinnovative techniques, such as looking for geobotan-ical indicators.

ProblemTraditional methods of material location entail a desk-top study of the road alignment on geological andtopographical maps, plus aerial photographs and evensatellite images, to identify potential sources. A fieldsurvey follows.

In many developing countries, aerial photographsand satellite images are not available. Moreover, geo-logical and topographical maps are of little use in flat,featureless terrain with a deep sand cover.

Sparse population and the lack of infrastructureimply few records of gravel sources. Many contractorstherefore resort to field studies, which can consumemonths of often-fruitless investigation, leaving scarson previously unspoiled landscapes.

SolutionThe presence of many plant species and even thenature of their growth often depend on the miner-alogical and physical properties of the soil. In the past,plant indicators have been used to locate various min-erals and metal ores; however, data and documenta-tion on the use of these indicators to locateconstruction materials are minimal.

Many road builders of the preceding generationplaced great importance on interpreting the naturalvegetation when pegging alignments and locating

materials. Much of this knowledge, however, has beenlost as these field-trained staff have retired.

Literature StudyThe literature on the topic is limited to locating cal-careous materials such as limestone and caliche inAfrica by identifying plant species with a high toler-ance for calcium, like Catophractes and Grewia. How-ever, an investigation of the vegetation around avariety of known material sources in various geologi-cal regions revealed that the presence of certain specieswas restricted to the immediate area of the source andnot beyond; for example, Stoebe species was foundnear laterite.

Location of similar growth patterns elsewhere inthe landscape sometimes indicated similar materials.The study also revealed that morphological differencesin certain species—such as stunted growth in Acaciaspecies and Colophospermum species—often indicatedchanges in material or in other relevant factors, suchas perched water tables, impeded drainage, or areaswith high clay content.

Catophractes alexandri or trumpet thorn canindicate caliche deposits.

PHO

TO: E

DW

AR

D B

RIS

SE, S

OU

TH A

FRIC

A

Rapid Location of RoadConstruction Materials inFlat, Featureless TerrainD A V I D J O N E S


TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

34

ApplicationEconomic developments in southern Africa and plansfor growth dictated the need for a corridor linking theport of Maputo in Mozambique on the east coast ofAfrica with Walvis Bay, a port on the west coast ofNamibia. The 2750-kilometer-long corridor wouldcross four countries.

Most of the western sections of the road traversedsparsely populated, arid areas with only a basic infra-structure of vehicle tracks. The area is flat, featureless,and covered with thick layers of mostly wind-blown

sand. The vegetation is predominantly scrub savan-nah, and the only road construction materials are thesand and isolated deposits of caliche and arkose.

Without suitable aerial photographs, the contrac-tor for one of the Botswana sections of the roadresorted to a ground study. The lack of roads in thearea and the presence of thick scrub savannah vege-tation hampered the investigation, and an alternativewas sought to prevent further costly delays.

A repeat ground study to locate potential botanicalindicators was considered inappropriate because ofthe nature of the terrain and the lack of infrastructure.The alternative of acquiring aerial photographs alsowas rejected because of the costs and the timerequirements.

An aerial survey to search for botanical indicatorstherefore was proposed. An ultralight aircraft (seephoto, this page) was selected because the plane isslow, highly maneuverable, and inexpensive to oper-ate in comparison with a helicopter; a fixed-wing air-craft generally is too fast for this kind of visual survey.

The following procedure was used:

The aircraft was flown approximately 200 mabove the ground along the proposed alignment.

The area to the left and right of the route align-ment would be searched for any abnormalities in (a)the microtopography, such as pan rims; (b) the veg-etation, such as a distinct change of species, a densethicket of one or two species, or a change in plantmorphology; or (c) the soil color. The key plants

In the United States, although particularplant species have been associated with the

presence of certain materials, the informationseldom is used to locate aggregate sources. Anexception is North Dakota, which lacks surfaceand near-surface rock exposures—the statedepartment of transportation (DOT) relies onvegetation indicators to locate aggregate forroad construction.

North Dakota DOT employees look for plantssuch as big sand grass, pigeon grass, and crestedwheatgrass to locate gravel pits. According to DOTobservations, woody shrubs, such as buck brushand sage, do not thrive well in gravely areas, andat midsummer the well-drained areas typicallyburn or thin out—another indicator. BecauseNorth Dakota is an agricultural state, crops also

have provided clues to subsurface conditions. In southwestern Oregon, unique vegetation

is associated with ultramafic and serpentinerocks in the Klamath Mountains. The Oregonwhite oak is known to indicate well-drainingmaterial such as sand and gravel in the PugetLowlands of Washington State. The pink prairiecone flower grows near limestone in southeastKansas. These associations, however, have notbeen used to locate potential materials for roadconstruction.

The technique developed by South Africa andBotswana, described by David Jones in the accom-panying Research Pays Off article, offers a success-ful model for reconnaissance work to develop newsources of road construction materials, applicablein the United States and other countries.

Ultralight aircraft used for aerial survey.

North Dakota Vegetation Yields Clues to Construction Materials


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

35

proved to be Catophractes alexandri or trumpetthorn, Grewia flava or brandybush, and Pecheul-loeschea leubnitziae.

When a plant site was observed, the pilot flewthe aircraft to the area for a closer inspection from theair. If any of the indicator plants were noted, theGeographic Positioning System coordinates wererecorded and a subjective rating was given to facili-tate and prioritize later site visits.

After inspection, the ultralight aircraft wasflown back to the route along the alignment until anew potential site was discerned.

With this procedure, a 60-kilometer section of theroute was traversed in approximately 3 hours. A totalof 14 potential sources of material were identified inthe area already surveyed unsuccessfully in the earlierground study.

Five of the sites, selected at appropriate pointsalong the route to minimize haul distances, were vis-ited in the following two days with a backhoe loader.All of the sites contained caliche of varying qualityand quantity, 1.0 to 2.0 m below the surface, which iscommon in the terrain, and is included in contractpricing practice. Tests on samples removed during thisexpedition showed that sufficient material could beexcavated to meet the required standards for the vari-ous layers and the surface treatment.

BenefitA 3-hour ultralight aircraft flight using botanical indi-cators to identify potential sources of materials, fol-lowed by a 2-day site inspection, located sufficientmaterial to build a 60-kilometer section of road. A 2-month field survey in the same area using traditionaltechniques had failed to locate the sources.

The costs for the pilot, the materials specialist, theaircraft, and the field allowances amounted to approx-

imately $2,000. In comparison, the costs for a geolo-gist, an assistant, and vehicle and field allowances forthe traditional survey totaled more than $8,000. Thetime and cost savings with the ultralight aircraft surveyare evident.

Although finding suitable road construction mate-rials is never a guarantee in any survey, the prescribedtechnique enhanced the ability of the prospector tofind suitable material or to know beyond reasonabledoubt that suitable materials were not present. Thetechnique has been used successfully to locate mate-rials—or to confirm that none were available—in sev-eral projects for which traditional methods wereunsuccessful or inconclusive.

South Africa and Botswana have developed guide-line documentation on the use of botanical indicatorsin material location. Although these studies wereundertaken in southern Africa, the procedure isapplicable to any area with similar conditions—suchas the southwestern United States, the Australian inte-rior, or the Middle East.

For further information, contact David Jones, TechnicalSpecialist, CSIR, P.O. Box 395, Pretoria 0001, SouthAfrica; telephone 2712-841-3831, e-mail [email protected].

EDITOR’S NOTE: Appreciation is expressed to G. P.Jayaprakash, Transportation Research Board, for hisefforts in developing this article.

(Left) Caliche deposit covered by Catophractes species and (right) working quarry started in same area.

Suggestions for “Research Pays Off” topics are wel-come. Contact G. P. Jayaprakash, TransportationResearch Board, Keck 488, 500 Fifth Street, NW,Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-2952,e-mail gjayaprakash@ nas.edu).


In January 2004, Christina Casgar joined the Office of theSecretary of Transportation in the U.S. Department ofTransportation’s (DOT) newly created Office of Freightand Logistics, formerly the Office of Intermodalism. The

Office of Freight and Logistics is developing an integratedfreight policy for U.S. DOT and serves as a conduit to shippers,carriers, and terminal operators.

Casgar’s background includes management of freight researchprojects, development of public information sessions, and businessanalysis of the structural reorganization and policy changes inmarine and intermodal freight transportation. Her 15 years inWashington, D.C., have focused on federal, state, and local policyanalysis in transportation.

Casgar’s previous experience at an operating port authority,

combined with years of advocacy for greater focus on freight sys-tem challenges, brought her to what she calls “the ideal careerspot” at U.S. DOT.

“Secretary Mineta has stated that port and freight capacity issuesare on his top-10 list for his second term,” says Casgar. “Being partof the Secretary’s freight policy team right now is the right spot atthe right time for me.”

Casgar and a small leadership team representing maritime, rail,and trucking components of the U.S. DOT are drafting freight pol-icy. U.S. DOT has engaged and funded the Transportation ResearchBoard’s (TRB) Freight Transportation Industry Roundtable to serveas a bridge between U.S. DOT and a cross-section of industry lead-ers who provide U.S. DOT leaders with insights into industry oper-ations and perspectives.

Casgar earned a master’s degree in maritime policy from theUniversity of Delaware, Newark, and began her career at the Portof Wilmington, Delaware. She started as marketing coordinator,representing the port with customers, the press, and city council—then the port’s board of directors. Two years later, she became theport’s European representative, opening an office and developinga customer base in Europe. This allowed Casgar to work withcargo development at its source.

In Europe she developed accounts for the port with steel pro-ducers, automobile manufacturers, wood and paper producers,and food and flower exporters. In her last 4 years at the Port ofWilmington, Casgar worked as director of port relations, moni-toring and further developing the port’s major accounts in con-tainerized fruit and vegetables.

“I was able to see first-hand how containerization revolution-ized shipping and the port industry,” she recalls.

In 1991, soon after the passage of the Intermodal Surface Trans-portation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), Casgar left the port to join TRBas Marine Transportation Specialist (Marine and IntermodalFreight) in the Technical Activities Division. The responsibilitiespresented her with the opportunity to work on the freight chal-lenges outlined in the new legislation.

While at TRB, Casgar worked with keytransportation research professionals andconducted research on issues confrontingU.S. public port authorities, including staffwork for the TRB–National ResearchCouncil Study on Landside Access to U.S.Ports. Casgar also attracted major newsponsors for TRB’s maritime activities andbroadened the financial and technical con-stituency for marine and intermodal trans-portation research.

TRB committees that Casgar hasstaffed or served as a volunteer includeInland Water Transportation, Interna-

tional Trade and Transportation, Ferry Transportation, NationalTransportation Data Requirements and Programs, the Innova-tions in Freight Transportation Modeling Task Force, and Inter-modal Terminal Design and Operations. Currently she serves aschair of the Freight Systems Group and is a member of the Tech-nical Activities Council.

Casgar thrives on positions that require building connections toprivate-sector freight operations to solve public policy problems.Before moving to U.S. DOT, she spent several years as the Execu-tive Director of the Foundation for Intermodal Research and Edu-cation (FIRE), a nonprofit public education foundation under theIntermodal Association of North America. That position gave Cas-gar the opportunity to serve the intermodal freight community bydeveloping and distributing accurate and informative materialsabout intermodal transportation.

“Bringing together intermodal players for common benefitscan be a steep pull at times, but the need is critical—the more wecan educate leaders on freight challenges, the better we can keepthe nation’s economy humming,” Casgar observes. “As the U.S.changes from a domestically driven economy to a more interna-tionally driven economy, this education about bottlenecks in theglobal supply chain becomes ever more critical.”

TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

36

P R O F I L E S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Bringing together intermodal players

for common benefits … is critical—the

more we can educate leaders on

freight challenges, the better we can

keep the nation’s economy humming.”

Christina S. CasgarU.S. Department of Transportation


As director of the Center for Transportation Studies(CTS) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapo-lis (UMN), Robert Johns strives for his center to bea catalyst for transportation innovation through

university research , education, and outreach. He directs a staffof 24 and works with university faculty in disciplines rangingfrom engineering and technology to economics, geography,planning, psychology, political science, supply chain manage-ment, architecture, and landscape architecture.

Johns currently leads an interdisciplinary research and out-reach program, Access to Destinations, which seeks to developaccessibility measures for various locations in the Minneapolis–St.Paul, or Twin Cities, area. The results will help explain changes inland use and transportation over the past decade, especially regard-ing the rapid increase in traffic congestion. The information will

also be used to analyze alternative land use strategies and modalinvestments in the future.

“Our center is an interface between academic expertise andtransportation practice,” Johns explains. “Innovative initiativesresult when we succeed at bringing our faculty together with pro-fessionals to address our most vexing transportation problems.”

Involved in the Transportation Research Board for more than 20years, Johns has served on many committees including Transpor-tation Data and Information Systems, Public Involvement in Trans-portation, Strategic Management, Management and Productivity,and Performance Measurement; and he chaired the Strategic Man-agement Committee, and the Management and Leadership Sec-tion. He currently chairs the Policy and Organization Group, whichprovides leadership and support to 30 committees, and is a mem-ber of the Technical Activities Council.

Johns took an unusual path to his position of leadership. Hisbackground comprises experience in research, marketing, tech-nology, business, and liberal arts. He earned a bachelor of sciencedegree in engineering operations, a master’s degree in businessadministration, and a second master’s in English with an empha-sis on American literature. He pursued the English degree to sat-isfy his interest in liberal arts, but has found that the knowledge he

gained has proved useful in his research, management, marketing,and facilitation roles.

“Studying literature gave me insight into characters and cul-tures, helping me understand, for example, the cultures and per-spectives of people in different sectors—public, private, andacademic—and helping me facilitate communication among peo-ple who have difficulty seeing other points of view.”

After college, Johns worked various positions—as a systemsanalyst at the University of Iowa Hospital; market manager for theAtchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company in Chicago;manager of methods and data systems at the Minnesota Depart-ment of Transportation; and director of the Regional Data Centerat the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area. He began an18-year career at the University of Minnesota in 1988 as a Coordi-nator for Research in CTS, helping founding director Richard

Braun establish research funding processes,technology transfer mechanisms, and alarge participatory structure involving pub-lic, private, and academic sector leaders.

Working under CTS director and Pro-fessor Gerard McCullough, Johns led amajor interdisciplinary research and out-reach program—the Transportation andRegional Growth Study—which contin-ues to be used by Minnesota decisionmakers in understanding the dynamics oftraffic congestion and suburban growth.

In 2001, Johns was appointed CTSdirector. He created a CTS scholars program, bringing together 40faculty and researchers from more than 25 disciplines at UMN towork more closely with CTS staff in identifying research opportu-nities and strengthening transportation education. Johns alsohelped establish the Graduate Certificate Program in Transporta-tion Studies. With the help of his staff and researchers, the annualfunding to UMN for transportation research, education, and out-reach has increased to $16 million.

Johns has strong views on where transportation research isheading. He believes that transportation is entering an era ofchange and innovation, driven by challenges that demand atten-tion, and that increased research funding is needed. According toJohns, the future will focus on more integration of transportationin urban design, new vehicle navigation and communicationstechnologies, the use of new fuels, innovative pricing and financ-ing schemes, greater focus on environmental and energy impacts,and increased attention to safety, freight, and new modal strategies.

“I have been fortunate to work in a field and an environmentthat has allowed me to continue to be a student,” Johns says, “topursue learning, and to facilitate creative innovations—an essen-tial strategy for all of us in the field of transportation as we addressour future challenges.”

TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

37

P R O F I L E S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

environment that has allowed me tocontinue to be a student, to pursuelearning and to facilitate creativeinnovations—an essential strategy

address our future challenges.”

Robert C. JohnsCenter for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota


“I … work in a field and an

… in the field of transportation as we

TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

38

TRB HIGHLIGHTS

Preparing for New StrategicHighway Research ProgramNeil Hawks was appointed Interim Director and AnnBrach Deputy Director of the newly authorizedStrategic Highway Research Program II (SHRP II).Both members of TRB’s staff, Hawks and Brach havestarted preliminary work for the new program’slaunch.

“Although SHRP II is not yet officially under way,and funds will not start flowing for some months,there is an immediate need to get an oversight com-mittee organized and start addressing a variety of chal-lenging organizational and scoping issues,” notes TRBExecutive Director Robert E. Skinner, Jr. “Neil andAnn are well prepared to handle this start-up phase.”

Hawks, TRB Director of Special Programs, hasmore than 35 years of transportation experience—23with TRB—and served in senior management withthe original SHRP. Brach, Senior Program Officer inthe Division of Studies and Information Services,has been the principal organizer of all SHRP II plan-ning activities for the past 5 years, and has served asChief of Research and Technology for the MarylandState Highway Administration and as a Research andTechnology Program Manager for the Federal High-way Administration.

TRB Annual Meeting:Spotlights and Highlights“Transportation 2025: Getting There from Here” isthe main spotlight theme of TRB’s 85th AnnualMeeting, January 22–26, 2006, in Washington, D.C.,with additional spotlights on sessions covering “TheInterstate Highway System’s 50th Anniversary: WhatHave We Learned?” and “SAFETEA-LU: What ItMeans for Research and the Transportation Com-munity.” More than 9,000 transportation profession-als are expected for the informational sessions,presentations, and workshops covering all modes oftransportation and a range of topics, including criti-cal issues in congestion, financing, security, safety,the environment, and institutional systems; trends intechnology and the economy; and public expecta-tions for accountability and performance.

Ralph J. Cicerone, the new president of theNational Academy of Sciences, will be the featuredspeaker at the Chairman’s Luncheon, a premiereevent, Wednesday, January 25, at the Omni ShorehamHotel in Washington, D.C. Former Chancellor of theUniversity of California, Irvine, Cicerone is an atmos-pheric scientist with expertise in atmospheric chem-istry and climate change.

Abba Lichtenstein, recipient of the 2006 Thomas B.Deen Distinguished Lectureship award, will speak on“The Preservation of Historic Transportation Facili-

ties,” on January 23, at the Marriott Wardman ParkHotel. Lichtenstein is the founder and former presi-dent of the original Lichtenstein Consulting Firm, anda prominent expert on historic bridges.

The Deen Distinguished Lectureship acknowl-edges the career contributions and achievements of anindividual in areas covered by TRB’s Technical Activ-ities Division. Honorees present summaries of theirtechnical areas, covering the evolution, status, andprospects for the future.

For more information, go to www.TRB.org/meetings.

Nobel LaureateHas TRB, AcademyConnectionsThomas C. Schelling, amember of both theNational Academy ofSciences and the Insti-tute of Medicine, hasreceived the 2005 NobelMemorial Prize in Eco-nomics for his work ingame theory analysis,with Robert J. Aumann of Hebrew University inJerusalem. Schelling has served on many NationalAcademies Committees, including the Committee fora Study on Transportation and a Sustainable Environ-ment, which produced TRB Special Report 251,Toward a Sustainable Future: Addressing the Long-TermEffects of Motor Vehicle Transportation on Climate andEcology in 1997.

Distinguished University Professor Emeritus atthe University of Maryland Department of Econom-ics and School of Public Policy, Schelling has pub-lished highly influential works in a number of areasincluding nuclear proliferation and arms control, ter-rorism, organized crime, energy and environmentalpolicy, climate change, and racial segregation.Schelling taught at Harvard for 31 years before join-ing the faculty at the University of Maryland in 1990.

In 1993, the National Academies honored him withthe Award for Behavioral Research Relevant to the Pre-vention of Nuclear War, for his pioneering work in thelogic of military strategy, nuclear war, and arms races.

Schelling describes game theory as “the study ofhow people interact when each person’s behaviordepends on, or is influenced by, the behavior of oth-ers.” For example, he says, “drivers in traffic starthonking their horns…because someone else honkedtheir horn first. Hearing your car horn, I honk mine,thus encouraging you to honk more insistently. Peo-ple respond to an environment of people’sresponses.” Lichtenstein

Schelling


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

39

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS NEWS

Measuring Tire–Pavement Noise at the Source

Tire–pavement noise has become an impor-tant consideration for highway agencies asthe public demands highway traffic noisereduction. Although sound walls moderatehighway noise, improved pavement struc-tures and surfaces may provide less expen-sive alternatives for noise mitigation.

Widely accepted procedures to measure tire-pavement noise underin-service conditions are not available. Research is necessary todevelop and evaluate procedures measuring noise levels applicable tolight and heavy vehicles, and on all paved surfaces.

IIlingworth & Rodkin, Inc. of Petaluma, California, has received a$250,000, 24-month contract [National Cooperative HighwayResearch Program (NCHRP) Project 1-44, FY 2005] to develop pro-cedures for measuring tire–pavement noise. Testing in-service pave-ments will demonstrate the value of these procedures for variouspavement types, noise levels, and light and heavy vehicles.

The goal is to supply highway agencies with appropriate means formeasuring and rating tire–pavement noise levels on pavements, eval-uating new pavements that offer noise-diminishing features, and iden-tifying design and construction features associated with different noise

levels. This information will help agencies identify methods for reduc-ing noise impacts on nearby communities.

For further information, contact Amir N. Hanna, TRB, 202-334-1892,[email protected].

National Database System for Highway Bridge MaintenanceHighway agencies perform a variety of maintenance procedures to pre-serve highway bridges. Although some of these procedures may besimilar from agency to agency, most of the applications methods,rates, bases of measurement, costs, performance, and other related fac-tors differ. No widelyaccepted system uniformlyrecords data related to main-tenance actions.

Research is needed toreview relevant information;recommend uniform defini-tions of data associated withmaintenance actions; anddevelop a database system for collection, storage, and retrieval ofrelated data.

FOCUS ON ISSUES—The Research and Technology CoordinatingCommittee (RTCC) met November 1–2, in Washington, D.C., to discussissues related to the direction and management structure of the

Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) recently authorized $14million advanced research program. Former RTCC member IrwinFeller of Pennsylvania State University, University Park, moderated

the discussion. With support from FHWA, the RTCC providescontinuing guidance on the nation’s highway researchprogram. (Left to right:) Participating in the discussionswere Dennis Judycki, Associate Administrator for Research and Technology, FHWA; Richard Capka, ActingAdministrator, FHWA; Al Teich, Director, Science and PolicyPrograms, American Association for the Advancement ofScience; Gary Henderson, Director, Office of InfrastructureResearch and Development, FHWA; and Tommy Beattie,Director, Office of Pavement Technology, FHWA.

SETTING PRIORITIES FOR SAFE OPERATIONS—The Committee onResearch Priorities and Coordination in Highway Infrastructureand Operations Safety considered priority areas, priority setting,and coordination of research on highway infrastructure andoperations safety at a meeting, September 12–13, in WashingtonD.C. Participants included (left to right:) Timothy Neuman, CH2M

Hill; LeannaDepue, CentralMissouri StateUniversity,Missouri SafetyCenter; Dan S.Turner,UniversityTransportationCenter for

Alabama;Forrest Council,University ofNorth Carolina,Chapel Hill,Highway SafetyResearchCenter; (and inphoto at right,left to right:)Chris Lawson,Office of Safety,FederalHighway Administration; Alison Smiley, Human Factors North, Inc.;Ann Dellinger, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; andEzra Hauer, University of Toronto.

(continued on next page)


The University of Colorado at Boulder has been awarded a$348,846, 21-month contract (NCHRP Project 14-15, FY 2005) todevelop a national database system of bridge-maintenance actions,materials, methods, and effectiveness; and to recommend uniform def-initions of related data. The database system will be prepared in a for-mat suitable for consideration and adoption by the AmericanAssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Adaptability for web-based applications will be pursued in a fol-low-up effort. Uniform definitions and a national database system willenable sharing of bridge maintenance data, which will help highwayagencies make appropriate adjustments to improve performance andreduce the cost of bridge maintenance operations.


Evaluating Dowel Alignment in Concrete Pavements

Dowels used in jointed portlandcement concrete pavements provideload transfer, reduce faulting, andimprove performance. The dowelsare positioned manually before con-crete placement or automatically bydowel bar inserters during construc-tion. Inspection of pavements in sev-

eral states has revealed that misalignment of dowels can occur withboth methods of placement; however, slab cracking and other formsof distress may not always occur as a result of the misalignment.

Research to determine the extent of dowel misalignment in pave-ment construction and the effect on performance is limited. Moreextensive research is necessary therefore to address the issues associ-ated with dowel alignment, identify approaches for estimating theshort- and long-term effects of different levels and types of misalign-ment on performance, and develop guidelines for use in performance-related specifications.

The University of Minnesota has been awarded a $499,983, 27-month contract (NCHRP Project 10-69, FY 2005) to study the effectsof all forms and combinations of dowel misalignment—for example,vertical and lateral skew and displacement—on performance, and todevelop guidelines for dowel alignment in concrete pavements. Theresearch findings will improve the design and analysis of concretepavements and provide appropriate measures for use in performance-related specifications.


Crash Energy Managementfor Light Rail VehiclesQuestions about using the longitudinal static strength or buff strengthof light rail vehicles (LRV) to control vehicle crush and to protect pas-sengers in a collision remain unanswered. This has prevented a con-sensus on a structural safety standard for LRVs.

A crash energy management (CEM) design may provide addedprotection to passengers in roadway vehicles that collide with LRVs by

reducing the frequency and severity of roadway vehicle passengerinjuries. Accident statistics for U.S. LRV operations indicate that col-lisions with roadway vehicles constitute a significant proportion of allinjuries and fatalities associated with LRV operation.

Research is needed to establish crush performance requirementsthat could serve as the principal part of an American Society of Mechan-ical Engineers (ASME) structural safety standard specifying levels ofcrush force and force-displacement relationships based on engineeringanalyses and simulations of various accident scenarios. These require-ments would take into account variations in the operating environ-ment, train consist configuration, occupant-compartment protection,and variations in current and anticipated vehicle designs.

In addition to crush performance requirements based on LRV-to-LRV collisions, this research will assess the effectiveness and practi-cality of using LRV CEM structural design approaches to mitigateroadway-vehicle passenger injuries from LRV collisions.

Applied Research Associates, Inc. has been awarded a $299,990,16-month contract (Transit Cooperative Research Program Project C-17, FY 05) to provide technical assistance to enable the ASME com-mittee to determine reasonable performance requirements fordynamic crush behavior for LRV-to-LRV collisions based on a CEMapproach that minimizes the probability of injury and fatality for arange of LRV designs under various high-risk collision scenarios. Asa secondary objective, the committee seeks information and guidanceon the technical feasibility and practicality of CEM zones to mitigatedamage and human injury in roadway vehicles during LRV–roadwayvehicle collisions. This research will support the current ASME effortto develop a structural safety standard for LRVs.

For further information, contact Chris Jenks, TRB, 202-334-1892,[email protected].

TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

40

TRB HIGHLIGHTS

LOOKING TO TRANSIT’S FUTURE—The TCRP Oversight and ProjectSelection (TOPS) Committee approved new research projects forfiscal year 2006 at a meeting on October 27, 2005. Projects includesafety improvements for interactions between light rail,pedestrians, and vehicles; the impact of 511 traveler informationservices on transit call-center operations; practical measures toincrease transit industry advertising revenues; the design andoperation of bus-only shoulder lanes on heavily congested sectionsof highways; and more. Assisting in the selection of projects forfunding were (left to right:) Lou Sanders, American PublicTransportation Association; Marc Hall, Conference of MinorityTransportation Officials; Paul Larrousse, Director, National TransitInstitute; and Jeanne Krieg, CEO, Eastern Contra Costa TransitAuthority.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS NEWS (continued)


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

41

Sea Basing: EnsuringJoint Force Access from the SeaNational Research Coun-cil, Washington, D.C.,2005; 87 pp; $25.25; 0-309-09517-4.

United States militaryforces that are sent toworld trouble spots willno longer establishbeachheads, iron moun-tains, or huge headquarters operations. Instead, thesefacilities and functions will move from land to a seabase at least 25 miles offshore—a concept called seabasing. The Defense Science Board (DSB) recentlyconcluded that sea basing will be a critical joint mil-itary capability in the future and called for furtherdevelopment of the concept. The U.S. Navy thereforerequested that the National Research Council orga-nize a workshop to assess the science and technologycapabilities, both inside and outside of the Navy, forthe implementation of sea basing and to identifyresearch and development to support the strategy.

This report, compiled from discussions and pre-sentations at the workshop, includes an examina-tion of sea basing operational concepts; the ship andaircraft technology available to make sea basingwork; and issues involved in creating a sea base as ajoint system.

Halley’s Quest: ASelfless Genius and HisTroubled ParamoreJulie Wakefield. JosephHenry Press, Washington,D.C., 2005; 261 pp;$27.95; 0-309-09594-8.

Edmond Halley pre-dicted the appearance ofa comet that would bearhis name; however, hisgreatest achievement mayhave been discoveringaccurate navigation techniques for sea vessels. Hal-ley’s Quest captures the science and spirit behind atrilogy of sea voyages on Halley’s 52-foot shipParamore, as he charted the earth’s magnetic fields,determining the difference between true and mag-netic north. The author portrays the struggle thatHalley endured to change the course of science byproducing charts that described more accurate waysto navigate and document new geophysical phe-nomena ranging from ocean patterns to the motionof Jupiter’s moons.

Global Competition inTransportation Markets:Analysis and PolicyMakingEdited by Adib Kanafani andKatsuhiko Kuroda. ElsevierLtd., United Kingdom, 2005;391 pp; $94.95; 0-7623-1204-1.

This book consists of theproceedings of an interna-tional symposium held atKobe University, Japan, thatbrought together some of the world’s leadingresearchers in transportation planning and policy. Thepapers present state-of-the-art research on competition,regulation, and system structure in air and maritimetransportation and serve as a resource in transportationsystems management. The book also could serve as atext for an advanced graduate course in transportation,economics, or public policy related to maritime freight.

The Resilient Enterprise:Overcoming Vulnerabilityfor Competitive AdvantageYossi Sheffi. The MIT Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts,2005; 338 pp; $29.95; 0-262-19537-2.

Yossi Sheffi examinesways that companies canbuild flexibility throughouttheir supply chains, by fol-lowing proven design principles and by developingthe right culture—balancing security, redundancy,and short-term profits. Investments in resilience andflexibility reduce risk and create a competitive advan-tage in the marketplace, he maintains, and hedemonstrates how to turn resilience investments intoa competitive advantage.

The book has five parts: part one introduces thenotions of vulnerability and resilience, focusing onthe causes and nature of disruptions; part twodescribes supply chain management and the chal-lenges associated with managing multiparticipantsupply chains; part three examines basic vulnerabil-ity-reduction measures—security, fast detection, andredundancy; and parts four and five summarize themain lessons of the book, including organizationalrecommendations and action items.

BOOKSHELF

The books in this section are not TRB publications.

To order, contact the publisher listed.


TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

42

Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation, Volume 2: Technical PapersConference Proceedings 35, Volume 2This volume contains peer-reviewed breakout andposter papers and several abstracts of papers presentedat the conference on Women’s Issues in Transporta-tion, in Chicago, Illinois, November 18–20, 2004. Theconference was designed to identify and explore addi-tional research and data needed to inform transporta-tion policy decisions that address women’s mobility,safety, and security needs and to encourage initiativesby young researchers. Volume one, which will bereleased in 2006, will include the conference sum-mary and four peer-reviewed survey papers.

2005; 210 pp; TRB Affiliates, $42.75; nonaffiliates,$57. Subscriber categories: planning and administra-tion (IA); safety and human performance (IVB).

Pavement Design and Accelerated Testing 2004Transportation Research Record 1896A mechanistic–empirical model to predict transversejoint faulting, a multilayer boundary-elementmethod for evaluating top-down cracking in hot-mixasphalt pavements, and one-way and two-way direc-tional heavy-vehicle simulator loading are examinedin this four-part volume on education tools, rigidpavements, flexible pavements, and accelerated pave-ment testing. The K. B. Woods Award winning designand construction of transportation facilities paper,“Computer-Based Multimedia Pavement TrainingTool for Self-Directed Learning,” by Stephen Muenchand Joe Mahoney of the University of Washington,also appears in this volume.

2004; 214 pp; TRB affiliates, $42; nonaffiliates, $56.Subscriber category: pavement design, management,and performance (IIB).

Statistical Methods and Safety Data Analysis and EvaluationTransportation Research Record 1897This volume presents research on the development ofaccident prediction models for rural highway inter-sections; the use of logistic regression to predict theseverity of median-related crashes in Pennsylvania;the marginal impacts of design, traffic, weather, andrelated interactions on roadside crashes; and the eval-uation and validation of an automated in-vehicle datacollection system for developing roadway align-ments. The D. Grant Mickle Award winning paper onoperation, safety, and maintenance of transportationfacilities, “Safety Effects of Narrow Lanes and Shoul-der-Use Lanes to Increase Capacity of Urban Free-ways,” by Karin Bauer, Douglas Harwood, and Karen

Richard of Midwest Research Institute, and WarrenHughes of BMI-SG, is also included in this volume.

2004; 210 pp; TRB affiliates, $40.50; nonaffiliates,$54. Subscriber category: safety and human perfor-mance (IVB).

Travel Demand and Land Use 2004Transportation Research Record 1898The authors examine the decision processes for activ-ity-travel scheduling and rescheduling; the personaltime–space prism vertex locations in developingcountries; the impact of intrahousehold interactionson individual daily activity-travel patterns; thedynamics of on-street parking in large centralizedcities; and transportation needs, location choice, andperceived accessibility for businesses.

2004; 210 pp; TRB affiliates, $40.50; nonaffiliates, $54.Subscriber category: planning and administration (IA).

Driver and Vehicle Simulation, HumanPerformance, and Information Systems forHighways; Railroad Safety; and Visualization in TransportationTransportation Research Record 1899This volume presents research on the use of intelli-gent transportation system data for determining dri-ver deceleration and acceleration behavior, motoristresponse to arterial variable message signs, the effectsof vehicle height on drivers’ speed perceptions, andthe effects of passenger and cellular phone conver-sations on driver distraction. The organizationalcompetence of the U.K. rail industry in strategicsafety management and the current practice andfuture directions of visualization in transportationalso are examined.

2004; 187 pp; TRB affiliates, $39; nonaffiliates, $52.Subscriber category: safety and human performance (IVB).

Construction 2004Transportation Research Record 1900This four-part final volume of the 2004 Record seriescovers topics in portland cement concrete pave-ments, bituminous pavements, quality assurance,and construction management. Analysis includesmultivariate models for evaluating segregation inhot-mix asphalt pavements, the effect of materialtransfer devices on flexible pavement smoothness,the process for selecting innovative quality assur-ance practices for materials, context-sensitive con-struction solutions, and innovative strategies on theDallas High Five project.

2004; 148 pp; TRB affiliates, $37.50; nonaffiliates, $50.Subscriber category: materials and construction (IIIB).

BOOKSHELF

TRB PUBLICATIONS


TR NEW

S 241 NOVEM

BER–DECEMBER 2005

43

Surface Transportation Security—Incorporating Security into the TransportationPlanning ProcessNCHRP Report 525, Volume 3The NCHRP Report 525 series assembles informa-tion pertaining to security problems and closelyrelated issues into single, concise volumes. Thesevolumes focus on the concerns that transportationagencies are addressing when developing programsin response to the terrorist attacks of September 11,2001, and the anthrax attacks that followed. Volume3 presents a broad assessment of the status, con-straints, opportunities, and strategies for incorporat-ing security into transportation planning at the stateand metropolitan levels and for including security-related projects in state and metropolitan priorityprogramming decisions.

2005; 58 pp; TRB affiliates: $15; TRB nonaffiliates:$20. Subscriber categories: planning and administration(IA); safety and human performance (IVB); public transit(VI); security (X).

Surface Transportation Security—A Self-Study

of Highway Infrastructure

This volume provides a general background in terror-ism-related risk management for highway infrastruc-ture and will assist bridge and structure engineers andmanagers in identifying critical highway assets andtheir potential vulnerabilities, developing possiblecountermeasures to prevent or ameliorate threats tosuch assets, and determining the capital and operatingcosts of such countermeasures.

CD-ROM; 2005; TRB affiliates: $26.25; TRB nonaf-filiates: $35. Subscriber categories: planning and admin-istration (IA); bridges, other structures, and hydraulicsand hydrology (IIC); public transit (VI).

Surface Transportation Security—Guidance for Transportation Agencies on ManagingSensitive Information

This report examines ways to identify sensitive infor-mation that must be protected and to control sensitiveinformation responsibly—the foundation for any trans-portation agency’s policy. Chapters cover establishinga sensitive information management policy, identifyingsensitive information, and controlling access.

2005; 55 pp; TRB affiliates: $15.75; TRB nonaffiliates:$21. Subscriber categories: planning and administration(IA); transportation law (IC); safety and human perfor-mance (IVB); aviation(V); public transit (VI); rail (VII);

freight transportation (VIII); marine transportation (IX);security (X).

Surface Transportation Security—Guide forEmergency Transportation OperationsNCHRP Report 525, Volume 6This sixth volume of NCHRP Report 525 supports thedevelopment of a formal program for the improvedmanagement of traffic incidents, natural disasters, secu-rity events, and other emergencies on the highway sys-tem. A coordinated, performance-oriented, all-hazardapproach called emergency transportation operations(ETO) is outlined. The volume focuses on an enhancedrole for state departments of transportation with thepublic safety community. Supplementing this volumeis NCHRP Web-Only Document 73, a resources guideand bibliography on ETO.

2005; 56 pp; TRB affiliates: $15.75; TRB nonaffili-ates: $21. Subscriber category: planning and adminis-tration (IA); maintenance (IIIC); operations and safety(IV); security (X).

Recommended Guidelines for Curb and Curb-Barrier InstallationsNCHRP Report 537AASHTO highway design policy discourages the use ofcurbs on high-speed roadways, but curbs are oftenrequired because of restricted right-of-way, drainageconsiderations, access control, and other functions. Thisreport presents recommendations for combinations ofcurb and strongpost guardrails, curb height, and lateraloffset between the curb and guardrail for operatingspeeds greater than 60 kilometers per hour (40 milesper hour).

2005; 97 pp; TRB affiliates: $16.50; TRB nonaffiliates:$22. Subscriber categories: highway and facility design(IIA); safety and human performance (IVB).

Traffic Data Collection, Analysis, andForecasting for Mechanistic Pavement DesignNCHRP Report 538Guidelines are presented for collecting traffic datafor pavement design. Also described are the actionsrequired at the state and national levels to imple-ment TrafLoad, a software package for analyzing traf-fic data and for producing the traffic data inputsrequired for the AASHTO pavement design software.TrafLoad and related user and procedures manualsare available online.

2005; 114 pp; TRB affiliates: $16.50; TRB nonaffil-iates: $22. Subscriber category: planning and adminis-tration (IA); pavement design, management, andperformance (IIB).

BOOKSHELF

To order the TRBtitles described inBookshelf, visit theTRB online Book-store, www.TRB.org/bookstore/, or con-tact the BusinessOffice at 202-334-3213.


NCHRP Report 525, Volume 5

NCHRP Report 525, Volume 4

Course on Terrorism-Related Risk Management

TR N

EWS

241

NOV

EMBE

R–DE

CEM

BER

2005

44

TRB Meetings2006

Additional information on TRB meetings, including calls for abstracts, meeting registration, and hotel reservations, is available atwww.TRB.org/calendar. To reach the TRB staff contacts, telephone 202-334-2934, fax 202-334-2003, or e-mail [email protected]. Meetingslisted without a TRB staff contact have direct links from the TRB calendar web page.

*TRB is cosponsor of the meeting.

C A L E N D A R

January

22–26 TRB 85th Annual MeetingWashington, D.C.Linda Karson

March

26–27 Safety Data Analysis ToolsWorkshop (by invitation)

Washington, D.C.Richard Pain

28–30 Transportation and EconomicDevelopment 2006*Little Rock, Arkansas

April

9–11 10th National Light RailTransit Conference: LightRail—A World of Applicationsand Opportunities*St. Louis, MissouriPeter Shaw

19–21 Visualization in the ChangingTransportation WorldDenver, ColoradoRichard Pain

26–28 8th Annual National HarborSafety CommitteeConference*Washington, D.C.Joedy Cambridge

May

TBD Environmental GeospatialInformation forTransportation: AMultidisciplinary Examinationof Noteworthy Practices(by invitation)

Thomas Palmerlee

June

4–7 North American TravelMonitoring Exposition andConference Minneapolis, MinnesotaThomas Palmerlee

4–7 1st International Symposiumon Freeway Operations*(by invitation)

Athens, GreeceRichard Cunard

July

9–11 Joint Summer MeetingSan Diego, CaliforniaMark Norman

16–19 3rd International Conferenceon Bridge Maintenance,Safety, and Management*Porto, Portugal

16–20 11th AASHTO–TRBMaintenance ManagementConference*Charleston, South Carolina

23–26 45th Annual Workshop onTransportation LawChicago, IllinoisJames McDaniel

25–29 5th International Symposiumon Highway Capacity*Yokohama, JapanRichard Cunard

30– 2nd International SymposiumAug 3 on Transportation Technology

Transfer*St. Petersburg, FloridaKimberly Fisher

August

TBD 7th National AccessManagementPark City, UtahKimberly Fisher

2–4 3rd Bus Rapid TransitConferenceToronto, Ontario, CanadaPeter Shaw

6–9 1st International Conferenceon Fatigue and Fracture inthe Infrastructure: Bridgesand Structures of the 21stCentury*Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaStephen Maher

23–26 7th International Conferenceon Short and Medium SpanBridges*Montreal, Quebec, CanadaStephen Maher

September

TBD 10th National Conference onTransportation Planning forSmall and Medium-SizedCommunities: Tools of theTradeNashville, TennesseeKimberly Fisher

October

TBD Freight Demand Modeling:Improving Analysis andForecasting Tools for Public-Sector Decision MakingElaine King

2–5 Plastic Pipes XIII Conference*Washington, D.C.


TR News welcomes the submission of manuscripts for possiblepublication in the categories listed below. All manuscripts sub-mitted are subject to review by the Editorial Board and otherreviewers to determine suitability for TR News; authors will beadvised of acceptance of articles with or without revision. Allmanuscripts accepted for publication are subject to editing forconciseness and appropriate language and style. Authorsreceive a copy of the edited manuscript for review. Original art-work is returned only on request.

FEATURES are timely articles of interest to transportation pro-fessionals, including administrators, planners, researchers, andpractitioners in government, academia, and industry. Articlesare encouraged on innovations and state-of-the-art practicespertaining to transportation research and development in allmodes (highways and bridges, public transit, aviation, rail, andothers, such as pipelines, bicycles, pedestrians, etc.) and in allsubject areas (planning and administration, design, materialsand construction, facility maintenance, traffic control, safety,geology, law, environmental concerns, energy, etc.). Manuscriptsshould be no longer than 3,000 to 4,000 words (12 to 16double-spaced, typed pages). Authors should also provideappropriate and professionally drawn line drawings, charts, ortables, and glossy, black-and-white, high-quality photographswith corresponding captions. Prospective authors are encour-aged to submit a summary or outline of a proposed article forpreliminary review.

RESEARCH PAYS OFF highlights research projects, studies,demonstrations, and improved methods or processes thatprovide innovative, cost-effective solutions to important transportation-related problems in all modes, whether theypertain to improved transport of people and goods or provi-sion of better facilities and equipment that permits such trans-port. Articles should describe cases in which the applicationof project findings has resulted in benefits to transportationagencies or to the public, or in which substantial benefits areexpected. Articles (approximately 750 to 1,000 words) shoulddelineate the problem, research, and benefits, and be accom-panied by one or two illustrations that may help readers bet-ter understand the article.

NEWS BRIEFS are short (100- to 750-word) items of inter-est and usually are not attributed to an author. They may beeither text or photographic or a combination of both. Linedrawings, charts, or tables may be used where appropriate.Articles may be related to construction, administration, plan-ning, design, operations, maintenance, research, legal matters,or applications of special interest. Articles involving brandnames or names of manufacturers may be determined to beinappropriate; however, no endorsement by TRB is impliedwhen such information is used. Foreign news articles shoulddescribe projects or methods that have universal instead oflocal application.

POINT OF VIEW is an occasional series of authored opin-ions on current transportation issues. Articles (1,000 to2,000 words) may be submitted with appropriate, high-qual-ity illustrations, and are subject to review and editing. Read-ers are also invited to submit comments on published pointsof view.

CALENDAR covers (a) TRB-sponsored conferences, work-shops, and symposia, and (b) functions sponsored by otheragencies of interest to readers. Notices of meetings shouldbe submitted at least 4 to 6 months before the event.

BOOKSHELF announces publications in the transportationfield. Abstracts (100 to 200 words) should include title, author,publisher, address at which publication may be obtained, num-ber of pages, price, and ISBN. Publishers are invited to submitcopies of new publications for announcement.

LETTERS provide readers with the opportunity to com-ment on the information and views expressed in publishedarticles, TRB activities, or transportation matters in general.All letters must be signed and contain constructivecomments. Letters may be edited for style and spaceconsiderations.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Manuscripts submitted forpossible publication in TR News and any correspondence oneditorial matters should be sent to the Director, PublicationsOffice, Transportation Research Board, 500 Fifth Street, NW,Washington, DC 20001, telephone 202-334-2972, or [email protected].

All manuscripts should be supplied in 12-point type,double-spaced, in Microsoft Word 6.0 or WordPerfect 6.1 orhigher versions, on a diskette or as an e-mail attachment.

Submit original artwork if possible. Glossy, high-qual-ity black-and-white photographs, color photographs, andslides are acceptable. Digital continuous-tone images mustbe submitted as TIFF or JPEG files and must be at least 3 in.by 5 in. with a resolution of 300 dpi or greater. A captionshould be supplied for each graphic element.

Use the units of measurement from the researchdescribed and provide conversions in parentheses, as appro-priate. The International System of Units (SI), the updatedversion of the metric system, is preferred. In the text, the SIunits should be followed, when appropriate, by the U.S.customary equivalent units in parentheses. In figures andtables, the base unit conversions should be provided in afootnote.

NOTE: Authors are responsible for the authenticity of theirarticles and for obtaining written permissions from pub-lishers or persons who own the copyright to any previouslypublished or copyrighted material used in the articles.

I N F O R M A T I O N F O R C O N T R I B U T O R S T O

TR NEWS

00_TRN_241_CYAN.qxd5 12/20/05 10:43 AM Page C3

Highway Capacity Manual 2000• U.S. customary print version (HCM2KE), 1,134 pages,

binder, 2000, ISBN 0-309-06746-4, $110.00• U.S. customary print version with CD-ROM (HCM2EC), ISBN

0-309-06746-4, $155.00• Metric print version (HCM2KM), 1,134 pages, binder, 2000,

ISBN 0-309-06681-6, $110.00• Metric print version with CD-ROM (HCM2MC), 1,134 pages,

binder, 2000, ISBN 0-309-06681-6, $155.00• CD-ROM—2-disk set with both U.S. customary and metric

versions (HCM2KC), 2000, $100.00

The Workforce Challenge: Recruiting, Training, and RetainingQualified Workers for Transportation and Transit AgenciesSpecial Report 275 (SR275), 186 pages, 6 x 9 paperback, 2003,ISBN 0-309-08563-2, $23.00

Transportation Finance: Meeting the Funding ChallengeToday, Shaping Policies for TomorrowTRB Conference Proceedings 33 (CP033), 97 pages, 8.5 x 11paperback, 2005, ISBN 0-309-09499-2, $37.00

Analytical Tools for Asset ManagementNCHRP Report 545 (NR545), 61 pages, 8.5 x 11 paperback,

2005, ISBN 0-309-08832-1, $32.00

Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive Maintenance Treatment ApplicationsNCHRP Report 523 (NR523), 76 pages, 8.5 x 11 paperback,2004, ISBN 0-309-08811-9, $21.00

Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance ActivitiesNCHRP Report 511 (NR511), 271 pages, 8.5 x 11 paperback,2004, ISBN 0-309-08786-4, $30.00

Transit-Oriented Development in the United States:Experiences, Challenges, and ProspectsTCRP Report 102 (TC102), 524 pages, 8.5 x 11 paperback,2004, ISBN 0-309-08795-3, $45.00

Freight Capacity for the 21st CenturySpecial Report 271 (SR271), 155 pages, 6 x 9 paperback, 2003,ISBN 0-309-07746-X, $23.00

Emerging New Paradigms: A Guide to Fundamental Changein Local Public Transportation OrganizationsTCRP Report 97 (TC97), 105 pages, 8.5 x 11 paperback, 2003,ISBN 0-309-08774-0, $22.00

Celebrations of the 50th Anniversary of the Interstate Highway System will pay trib-ute to the vision and dedication that created the system and will recognize the com-mitment necessary to preserve and manage all of the components of the U.S.transportation network. Lessons from the past and from current research pro-grams—together with new technology and the new opportunities created by theSafe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

(SAFETEA-LU)—provide a solid foundation for that task. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) has assembled and publisheda bookshelf of resources and guides for transportation professionals, decision makers, and members of the general public, pro-moting innovation and progress in transportation through research.

Related TRB publications include the following:

To order these and other TRB publications, visit the TRB Bookstore, www.TRB.org/bookstore/; call 202-334-3213; or e-mail [email protected].

Getting Therefrom Here

00_TRN_241_CYAN.qxd5 12/20/05 10:43 AM Page C4

Documents

TR NEWS - Transportation Research Board · TR NEWS NUMBER 241 NOVEMBER ... The final plan for the landmark AASHO Road Test—approaching its 50th ... Rapid Location of Road Construction