3 INTRODUCTIONInvolving Local and Regional Stakeholders in Highway ResearchE. Dean CarlsonTRB’s Research and Technology Coordinating Committee makes a foray into anunexplored topic: how to involve local and regional transportation agencies in thehighway research and technology enterprise, systematically, appropriately, and atevery stage.

4 Highways and Byways to Stakeholder Involvement:Establishing a Network of Connections to Highway ResearchWalter DiewaldInvolving local and regional practitioners in cutting-edge highway research is atask difficult to achieve, according to this author, who identifies the challenges,inventories the few programs that may serve as models, reviews the informalexchanges that can be developed, and presents opportunities for a concerted effortto connect researchers and local practitioners in successful collaborations.

11 A Framework for Stakeholder Involvement:Managing Research with a Focus on UsersAnn M. BrachA framework was developed to identify the most effective roles for differentstakeholders at various stages of the research management process and to suggestappropriate mechanisms for involvement. The background, contexts, functions,and applications of the framework are presented with a view to involving local andregional agencies in research programs.

17 Instituting Programs for Stakeholder Outreach: Federal Highway Administration Initiatives for Local-Level Involvement in Research and TechnologyJoe ConwayThe Federal Highway Administration’s corporate master plan for research and forthe deployment of technology and innovation emphasizes stakeholder input, witha goal of effective implementation. Here is how systematic outreaches and strategicpartnerships are working to improve local-level freight planning, travel demandforecasting, air quality analysis, and roadway safety.

22 Toward Local and Regional Involvement in Highway Research:Staking Out the Starting Point and the Road AheadSandra Rosenbloom, Michael M. Ryan, and Walter DiewaldFindings from expert panel discussions and from questionnaire responses indicatethat each major research program area could develop and implement a stakeholderinvolvement process tailored to its needs, these authors report. A range oftechniques may be needed, including workshops and road shows; contactsthrough professional or technical organizations, advisory boards, and workinggroups; and dedicated websites.

TR NEWSNUMBER 234 SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2004

Cover: Demonstration projects,online classes and informationsystems, early implementation ofnew technologies, and road shows(shown in cover insets) are amongthe outreach techniques andstrategies to involve local andregional transportation agency staffand other stakeholders effectively inresearch and development projects.

11

17

22

Local and Regional Stakeholder Involvement in Highway Research

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:52 PM Page 1

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

features 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 DirectorDavid Altstadt, Assistant EditorJuanita Green, Production ManagerMichelle Wandres, Graphic Designer

TR News Editorial BoardNeil F. Hawks, ChairmanJoseph A. BreenWalter J. DiewaldFrederick D. HejlTimothy HessStephan 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 e-maildaltstadt@nas.edu.

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 © 2004 Transportation Research Board. All rights reserved.

TR NEWS

A meander on the San Joaquin River nearModesto, California, passes near a levee thatprotects farmland.

What can today’s transportationvisionaries learn from the flaws andproofs of past visions oftransportation’s future? A featurearticle in the November–December2004 TR News offers some cluesthat may stimulate, sharpen, andtest productive visions. Otherfeatures present a methodology topredict stream meanders that canaffect transportation infrastructure;share practical insights intomanagement and leadership;explore the federal role inimproving the MarineTransportation System; and more.

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

28 TRB SPECIAL REPORTMeasuring Personal Travel and Goods Movement:A Review of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ SurveysJill WilsonHow can the Bureau of Transportation Statistics ensure that the NationalHousehold Travel Survey and the Commodity Flow Survey providetransportation data products that meet customer needs and are relevant topolicy and investment decisions affecting transportation? A TRB reportpresents the findings and recommendations of a study committeeappointed by the National Academies.

32 Research Pays OffRailroad Flatcars for Low-Volume Bridges:Iowa Counties AdoptLow-Cost StructuresB. P. Keierleber, J. Witt, T. J.Wipf, and F. W. Klaiber

34 ProfilesJon E. Burkhardt, survey researcherand pioneer in improving access totransportation services for peoplewith special needs, and safetyresearcher Forrest M. Council.

36 News BriefsFerries sail on low-emissions fuels,concrete lab makes field calls, scraptires recycle for new transportationuses, and drivers are not safer withhands-free cell phones.

38 TRB HighlightsCRP News, 40

41 Bookshelf

44 Calendar

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:52 PM Page 2

The Research and Technology Coordinating Committee(RTCC) provides continuing guidance to the Federal High-way Administration (FHWA) on highway research andtechnology (R&T) opportunities. Convened by the TransportationResearch Board (TRB) of the National Academies and funded byFHWA, the committee addresses a variety of topics, some at therequest of FHWA and others selected by the committee.

In April 2003 the RTCC hosted a Symposium on Highway R&Tat the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C.Stakeholder involvement in highway research programs was amuch discussed topic. In TRB Special Report 261, The FederalRole in Highway Research and Technology, published in 2002,the RTCC had recommended that FHWA’s R&T program “bemore responsive to and influenced by the major stakeholders inhighway innovation.” Several symposium participants observedthat more could be done to engage local and regional trans-portation agencies as stakeholders in the development ofresearch programs. The committee decided to examine this issuemore closely.

In several follow-on meetings, the RTCC reviewed backgroundpapers, organized panel discussions with representatives ofnational associations for local and regional transportation agen-cies, with state department of transportation (DOT) researchmanagers, and with directors of Local Technical Assistance Pro-gram centers. The committee also relied on responses to a ques-tionnaire sent to members of several national associations andgathered information from discussions with FHWA research man-agers, state DOT representatives, and local and regional trans-portation agency practitioners.

Stakeholder involvement can range from informal, ad hocactivities to formal meetings and programs. With a shared senseof public purpose, participants work toward common goals tobridge traditional, institutional, functional, and technical bound-aries. Needs, priorities, and conditions, however, vary fromregion to region, as do the roles, responsibilities, size, andresources of transportation agencies. Communities have differ-ent concerns, ranging from traffic throughput to traffic calmingto the effects of urban sprawl and economic development.

From a local perspective, state agencies sometimes appear

insensitive. State officials in turn may find that representa-tives of local entities do not speak with one voice, so thatneeds are difficult to define. Other challenges includechangeovers in administrations and in elected and appointedofficials; the lack of champions for innovation in many agen-cies; differences in organizational cultures; obsolete tech-nologies; and legacy systems.

The value of highway research is in the results—in the imple-mentation of research products that improve performance orreduce costs, or both. Local and regional transportation agencyinvolvement in research programs is important if innovationaims at widespread implementation. Involvement may includeparticipation in field tests of products and systems, membershipon the research advisory team, or analyzing the research-basedimprovements. All of these activities would benefit the researchproject and assist in implementation.

The articles in this issue provide background on a topic that isimportant to the nation’s highway R&T enterprise but that has notbeen examined thoroughly. The authors describe what is beingdone but recognize that what works best is not yet known. Localand regional transportation agencies are key contributors in thecontinued, efficient functioning of our surface transportation sys-tem. Therefore, involving them as partners is necessary as the R&Tenterprise identifies, undertakes, tests, and implements innovativetransportation technologies. Many mechanisms are in place toinclude these partners in the enterprise, and program successdepends on increased participation.

The committee recognizes former Chair C. Michael Walton,University of Texas at Austin, for encouraging pursuit of this topicand for his leadership in many of the discussions that have influ-enced and informed the articles included here.

The author is Director, Carlson Associates, Topeka, Kansas,Chair of RTCC, and Past Chair, TRB Executive Committee.

TR NEW

S 234 SEPTEMBER–O

CTOBER 2004

3

EDITOR’S NOTE: Appreciation is expressed to Walter Diewald,Senior Program Officer, TRB Division of Studies and Infor-mation Services, and study director for the RTCC, for hisefforts in developing this issue of TR News.

Who Is Involved and How?

What Works Best?

Who Is Involved and How?

What Works Best?

INTRODUCTION

Local and Regional Stakes in Highway Research

INTRODUCTION

Local and Regional Stakes in Highway Research E . D E A N C A R L S O N

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:52 PM Page 3

TR N

EWS

234

SEPT

EMBE

R–O

CTO

BER

2004

4

The author is SeniorProgram Officer, TRBDivision of Studiesand InformationServices.

Involving local and regional transportationagencies and practitioners in highway researchencounters two immediate challenges: thelarge numbers of agencies and practitioners;and the variety of agency types and sizes. Never-theless, the active involvement of agencies andpractitioners is important because agencies andpractitioners implement transportation technolo-gies and innovations. Involvement enables stake-holders to influence research program developmentat any of several stages.

In the United States, a multilevel system of federal,state, and local governments and agencies managestransportation. More than 39,000 government unitsexercise transportation responsibilities (Table 1, facingpage).

Local and RegionalLocal transportation agencies—at the county, city,town, and township levels—provide transportationinfrastructure and, sometimes, transit services.Regional agencies include metropolitan planning orga-nizations (MPOs), regional councils, and councils ofgovernments responsible for specific transportationactivities and planning. Regional agencies often areresponsible for meeting state and federal regulationsfor transportation and environmental planning formetropolitan or other large geographic areas.

Local and regional transportation agencies differ inbudgets and sources of funding, in responsibilities,and in staff size and expertise. These variations reflectthe jurisdictions’ land area, population and populationdensity, relationship to the state government, naturalresources, key industries, and transportation modes.

The extent of responsibility that local and regionalagencies have for the highway system depends on thestate, as well as on other factors, such as urbanization,road taxes, geography, weather, and economic base.On average, a state DOT is responsible for approxi-

mately 20 percent of the highways within its borders(Table 1); the range extends from 6 percent in NewJersey to 92 percent in West Virginia (1).

Some large counties have a public works or trans-portation department with traffic engineering, plan-ning, and construction and maintenance divisionssimilar to those of state departments of transportation(DOTs). Many small and less populated counties,cities, towns, and townships have a single departmentwith wide-ranging responsibilities, but limitedresources and a small staff.

Local and regional agency staff have different lev-els of familiarity with highway R&T programs, withFederal Highway Administration (FHWA) and stateDOT specialists, with technical assistance and infor-mation programs—such as the Local Technical Assis-tance Program (LTAP)—and with the services offeredby technical and professional associations. For tech-nical advice and information, local agencies and prac-titioners may rely on other agencies—at the state,larger county, and urban levels—and on consultants.

Attracting InputIn recent years, several of the nation’s highwayresearch programs have sought stakeholder inputfrom local and regional agencies and practitioners.For example, the National Highway R&T Partner-ship—initiated by FHWA, the American Associationof State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO), and TRB in 1998 to identify highwayR&T needs—provided opportunities for involvingthe entire highway stakeholder community. The part-nership attracted hundreds of individuals from thefederal, state, regional, and local levels, and frommore than 170 organizations.

Five ad hoc working groups—covering safety;infrastructure renewal; operations and mobility; policyanalysis, planning, and systems monitoring; and plan-ning and environment—met several times in an 18-

Highways and Byways to Stakeholder Involvement Establishing a Network of Connections to Highway ResearchW A L T E R D I E W A L D

I N V O LV I N G L O C A L A N D R E G I O N A L S TA K E H O L D E R S I N H I G H WAY R E S E A R C H

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:52 PM Page 4

TR NEW

S 234 SEPTEMBER–O

CTOBER 2004

5

month period to prepare comprehensive lists ofresearch needs. The TRB website posted working doc-uments and draft reports for comment, providingadditional opportunities for participation.

Another example is the Surface TransportationEnvironmental Cooperative Research Program Advi-sory Board, a TRB committee requested by Congressto assess the need for a program and the researchtopics a program would address. Board members rep-resented the spectrum of the transportation and envi-ronmental communities: academia, state DOTs, stateenvironmental protection agencies, MPOs, transitagencies, environmental groups, and industry.

The board identified research needs through sev-eral mechanisms, including a public request, a con-ference, commissioned papers, and documentation ofthe research conducted in the 5 years since the previ-ous national conference. Participants represented localand regional stakeholder groups, as well as nationaltechnical and professional associations.

Local and regional stakeholders can play key rolesin research programs through individual participationor through organizations, such as technical or profes-sional associations. Most members of national techni-cal and professional associations work for either localor regional transportation agencies or for the private-sector entities that support them. The box on page 6lists a sampling of these associations.

State Strategies Local and regional stakeholder involvement in stateDOT research programs reflects the different ways thatstates manage highway systems. For example, a statethat is responsible for all or nearly all of its highwaystends to address many research topics related to localissues; often the local or regional practitioners are stateDOT employees.

According to members of AASHTO’s ResearchAdvisory Committee (RAC), several states conductresearch for local agencies, particularly for transitand planning agencies. State-funded universityresearch in several states also addresses local andregional issues.

Many state DOTs conduct an annual solicitationfor research ideas from many sources, including localand regional agencies, MPOs, and LTAP centers. Inseveral states, a local agency representative is a mem-ber of the DOT research advisory board that selectstopics for funding. Many also tap local and regionalpractitioners for research project panels, particularlyfor topics that converge with local interests.

Direct Local ControlTwo highway research programs are designed to meetlocal highway needs and are under the direct control

of local agencies, which allocate the resources andestablish research priorities: the Minnesota Local RoadResearch Board (LRRB) and the Iowa HighwayResearch Board (IHRB).

Minnesota: Sponsoring ProjectsThe state legislature established the Minnesota LRRBin 1959 to address local highway agency researchneeds. The board has programmatic control over anannual budget that derives from one-half of 1 percentof state highway funds for local systems—about $2.3million in 2003. The LRRB has sponsored more than150 projects on a variety of topics, including materi-als and methods for constructing and maintainingpavement; drainage systems and other utilities underthe pavement; management of the roadside environ-ment; and bridge construction and maintenance.

The LRRB has 10 members: 1 city public worksdirector, 1 city engineer, 3 county engineers, thedirector of the University of Minnesota Center forTransportation Studies (UMCTS); and 3 staff mem-bers from Minnesota DOT. County and city engi-neers submit research topics, and the LRRB selectsand approves topics and prepares requests for pro-posals.

Minnesota DOT provides the administrative sup-port and technical assistance for the program.Researchers from Minnesota DOT, universities, andconsulting firms conduct the research, and the LRRBmonitors research progress.

A Research Implementation Committee (RIC)transfers the research findings into practical applica-tions. RIC informs engineers and others about new

TABLE 1 Highway Miles and Expenditures Classified by Administrative Responsibility

Highway Miles 2001 Expenditures(% of total) for Highways (% of total)

Number of for Which by Expending AgencyAdministration Agencies Responsible ($ millions)

Federal agency 5 121,531 (3) 1,913 (1)

State agency 52 775,579 (20) 81,803 (63)

County agency 3,034a 1,781,686 (45) NA

Town and township 16,506a 1,215,656 (31)b,c NA

Municipal 19,431a —c 46,184 (36)

Other jurisdictionsd — 68,823 (2) NA

Total 39,028 3,963,275 129,900e

NOTE: NA = not available.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Commerce (2002); FHWA (2002).a In addition to the agencies listed in the table, there are 537 regional councils and 334

metropolitan planning organizations.b Estimates based on census data.c Municipal mileage is combined with town and township mileage.d Includes state park, state toll, and other state agencies; other local agencies; and roadways not

identified by ownership.e Differences due to funds placed in reserve.

The National HighwayR&T Partnership enabledindividuals from thefederal, state, regional,and local levels, and frommore than 170organizations to provideinput on research needsfor safety; infrastructurerenewal; operations andmobility; policy analysis,planning, and systemsmonitoring; andplanning andenvironment.

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:52 PM Page 5

TR N

EWS

234

SEPT

EMBE

R–O

CTO

BER

2004

6

developments through a variety of methods, includ-ing slide presentations, videos, reports, pamphlets,seminars, workshops, field demonstrations, CD-ROMs, and site visits. RIC consists of four countyengineers; one city engineer; one city public worksdirector; four Minnesota DOT staff members; and arepresentative from UMCTS.

Iowa: Setting PrioritiesThe Iowa legislature established the IHRB in 1949 toadvise Iowa DOT on research. The local highwayresearch program now has an annual budget of $2million. Project funds come from three sources: theIowa primary road fund, the state’s farm-to-marketfund, or the state’s street research fund, depending onwhich road system will benefit.

The board has 15 members: 7 county engineersand 2 city engineers; 4 Iowa DOT engineers; 1 repre-sentative from Iowa State University; and 1 from theUniversity of Iowa. The Iowa DOT division director

appoints the members to 3-year terms; Iowa DOTadministers the research program.

Local and regional agencies submit research proj-ect ideas, and the IHRB establishes priorities and sub-mits recommendations to Iowa DOT for approval.Projects benefitting more than one road system arejointly funded; projects that benefit the state systemare eligible for state funds.

State InitiativesOregon’s transportation advisory committees provideopportunities for stakeholders to get involved in stateDOT activities, including research and development(see box, page 8). Indiana and Washington DOTs alsohave established programs that connect with stake-holders.

Indiana’s Stakeholder TiesSome state DOTs have longstanding ties with localand regional agencies. Through the Indiana JointTransportation Research Program (JTRP), a 70-year-old partnership with Purdue University, Indiana DOTsponsors the Purdue Road School, an annual confer-ence that dates back to 1914. The conference attractsmore than 1,500 local and state officials, agency prac-titioners, consultants, and suppliers to exchange infor-mation and ideas related to research results and needs.

Like JTRP, the Indiana LTAP center is located onthe Purdue University campus. The center providestechnical assistance to county, city, and town officialsthrough training programs, workshops, and seminarsat the university and other in-state sites, as well asthrough newsletters and technical bulletins. The Indi-ana LTAP manager monitors and disseminates JTRPresearch on topics of interest to local and regionalagencies. The LTAP center advisory board consists offour association representatives; five county commis-

The Circuit Training and Assistance Program (CTAP) vandistributes transportation research and innovations tolocal agency practitioners throughout Minnesota. CTAPreceives a portion of its funding from the MinnesotaLocal Road Research Board (LRRB).

American Concrete Pavement AssociationAmerican Planning AssociationAmerican Public Transportation Association American Public Works AssociationAmerica WALKSAssociation of Metropolitan Planning

OrganizationsCommunity Transportation Association of

AmericaInstitute of Transportation EngineersInternational City–County Management

AssociationNational Asphalt Pavement Association

National Association of City TransportationOfficials

National Association of CountiesNational Association of County EngineersNational Association of Development

OrganizationsNational Association of Regional CouncilsNational Association of Towns and TownshipsNational League of CitiesPublic Technology, Inc.Surface Transportation Policy ProjectU. S. Conference of Mayors

Sample Associations Representing Local and Regional Agencies and Practitioners

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:52 PM Page 6

TR NEW

S 234 SEPTEMBER–O

CTOBER 2004

7

sioners; four town officials and managers; eight exofficio representatives from industry and local associ-ations; four university representatives; and one repre-sentative from Indiana DOT.

Washington CRABLocal agencies interact with state DOTs and stateresearch programs through organizations that admin-ister state road funds for county highway agencies,especially when counties are responsible for the localroad system. For example, the Washington state leg-islature created the County Road AdministrationBoard (CRAB) in 1965 to oversee the state’s 39 countyroad departments. CRAB’s mission is to preserve andenhance the transportation infrastructure of Wash-ington counties by providing standards of practice,administration of funding programs, leadership, andprogressive and professional technical services.

The board is funded from a portion of the coun-ties’ fuel tax and from a small portion of two grantprograms. CRAB performs research, prepares techni-cal reports, presents testimony, and is custodian ofthe county road log, a database for more than 40,000miles of roads. The research focuses on statutory andregulatory issues that affect county road and publicworks departments.

In 1985 the state legislature asked CRAB to dis-tribute the counties’ portion of the state motor vehiclefuel tax. The formula for the distribution of fuel taxrevenues is updated biennially to reflect changes inpopulation, costs, and mileage.

CRAB is governed by a nine-member board—sixcounty commissioners or county council members andthree county engineers—appointed by the board ofdirectors of the Washington State Association of Coun-ties. Meeting quarterly, CRAB establishes and maintainsa document, Standards of Good Practice, to guide andensure consistency and professional management inWashington county road departments. These standards

are based on state standards and specifications. CRAB works with the Washington Association of

County Engineers and the Washington State Associa-tion of Counties on transportation-related issues.Through these indirect connections, county roadagencies can interact directly with the state DOT. Asthe primary representative of the county agencies,CRAB can approach the state DOT whenever localtopics emerge—including topics for research.

Expanding Opportunities These examples illustrate ways that many DOTs con-nect with local and regional agencies and practitioners.The examples also offer techniques for soliciting andexchanging information and technical advice throughthese connections.

Although these connections are oriented to trans-portation program and technology transfer activities,some offer more direct mechanisms for involvementin research programs—for instance, through directoversight of highway research programs and throughmembership on advisory boards of state DOTresearch programs. Some formal connections haveyet to be exploited for research program stakeholderinvolvement—such as membership on LTAP centeradvisory boards.

Several informal settings also serve to connect localand regional stakeholders to research program man-agers and researchers, but with little or no expectationof research program involvement. Nevertheless, someof these mechanisms offer opportunities.

The list of opportunities presented is notexhaustive, and the effectiveness of many of the tech-niques has not yet been determined (see Table 2, page9). The suggested approaches stem from discussionswith RAC members, representatives of the LTAP

The LRRB has sponsored several traffic calmingstudies that have provided strategies for the designof urban road projects.

City and county engineers volunteer to serve on theMinnesota LRRB board and committees. JohnRodeberg (left), city engineer for Hutchinson, chairsthe LRRB Outreach Committee and serves on theboard, and Tom Colbert (right), city engineer forEagan, is chair of the LRRB Board. Here, they areparticipating in a tour of the lift bridge in Duluth,during a joint quarterly meeting of the LRRB and theResearch Implementation Committee.

The Erosion ControlHandbook for LocalRoads offers guidelinesand methods for erosioncontrol practices on low-volume roads. The LRRBprovided funds for thisproject, and LRRBmembers served on theproject’s technicaladvisory panel.

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:52 PM Page 7

TR N

EWS

234

SEPT

EMBE

R–O

CTO

BER

2004

8

Oregon’s structure of advisory committeesfor transportation illustrates the poten-tial for involving local and regional stake-holders in highway research programs. Forexample, the Local Officials Advisory Commit-tee provides input to the Oregon Transporta-tion Commission (OTC) on policy and fundingfor the state transportation system. The com-mittee consists of 12 elected and appointedlocal government officials selected by theAssociation of Oregon Counties and theLeague of Oregon Cities—6 county represen-tatives and 6 city representatives.

In addition, the Oregon Department ofTransportation (DOT) has 10 advisory commit-tees on various transportation topics. Each hasbroad representation from stakeholders—pri-marily through associations that representinterested and affected groups. For example,the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian AdvisoryCommittee advises Oregon DOT on the regu-lation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic and onthe location and establishment of bikewaysand walkways. The committee meets quarterlyaround the state to listen to the views and con-cerns of interested citizens, local officials, andOregon DOT regional staff. The eight commit-tee members, appointed by the governor toserve four-year terms, include a local govern-ment staff member employed in land-use plan-

ning; a representative of an environmentaladvocacy group; a bicycle shop owner; a mem-ber designated by the Oregon Recreation TrailsAdvisory Council; a member under the age of21; and three members-at-large.

Other committees address drunk and drug-impaired driving; freight transportation; theHistoric Columbia River Parkway; passengerrail; public transit; stakeholders in the StateTransportation Improvement Program (STIP)process; and traffic control devices.

Like other states, the Oregon LTAP centerhas an advisory committee, including threecounty representatives, four city representa-tives, one member from the Association ofOregon Counties, one member from the U.S.Forest Service, and two from the Bureau ofLand Management.

In 1996 OTC expanded opportunities forlocal citizen involvement in Oregon DOT’sdecision making. OTC authorized 11 regionaladvisory commissions to address regional andlocal transportation issues that affect the statesystem. Their primary role is to provide adviceon the development of the STIP, which sched-ules transportation projects. Because theseadvisory groups interact with other local orga-nizations dealing with transportation-relatedissues, they also have the potential to addressresearch needs.

The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (OBPAC) holds a public meeting in Depoe Bay tolisten to the concerns of interested citizens, local officials, and Oregon Department of Transportationregional staff.

Oregon’s Organized Outreach to Stakeholders

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:52 PM Page 8

TR NEW

S 234 SEPTEMBER–O

CTOBER 2004

9

centers, and staff of many of the associations listed inthe box on page 6. A recent study of stakeholderinvolvement in agricultural research outlines someadditional approaches that may be instructive andapplicable (see box, page 10).

Responding to ChallengesStakeholder involvement in research programs facessubstantial challenges (2):

Making contact, generating interest, and gettinga response. Respondents to a questionnaire sent outby the Research and Technology CoordinatingCommittee noted that connecting with local andregional agencies and practitioners through profes-sional and technical associations and through LTAPcenters is more likely to generate a response than acold call or a letter. Local agencies often are strug-gling to keep up with assignments and with day-to-day concerns and therefore are more likely to beinterested in information and technical assistanceaimed at new or persistent problems than in iden-tifying research needs.

Time and resources. Getting sufficient informa-tion about local problems and translating the datainto a statement of research needs can be difficult,time consuming, and expensive. Nevertheless, costscan decrease over time as information is exchanged,as agencies and practitioners find ways to interactmore efficiently, and as evidence develops to sup-port the value of exchanging information.

Continuity. Staff turnover can affect institu-tional memory and interest, especially when thereplacements are less familiar with the activity or areunable to participate at the established technicallevel. Maintaining continuity—in terms of people,effort, issues, and participation—is a challenge, par-ticularly with volunteers.

Variations among agencies and practices. Trans-portation agencies and practitioners differ, and prob-lems vary from locality to locality. Inquiries on specificissues therefore must be focused to maintain interestand produce a useful exchange of information.

Communication among practitioners andresearchers. Even when practitioners and researcherstalk about the same topics or problems, their needs,interests, and purposes may differ, hampering effec-tive communication. Other barriers are the differenttypes, sizes, and kinds of agencies; jurisdictionaland functional boundaries; past interactions thatwere not productive; funding limitations; agencypriorities; and the agency’s technology choices.Although the local agency representatives may notbe as technically astute as the researchers, theagency representatives are often more knowledge-

able about the political and budgetary issues thataffect implementation.

Technology preferences. Operating agencies pre-fer proven technologies. Agencies, consultants, andcontractors often rely on state DOT standards andspecifications for guidance. These agencies, how-ever, understand the limitations of some standardsand specifications in meeting their needs.

Feedback. Agencies and practitioners wanttheir contribution to research program developmentto make a difference. When they are asked to partic-ipate, they expect feedback indicating that theirviews have been considered. Failure to provide feed-back can damage the relationship.

TABLE 2 Mechanisms for Research Program Involvement

Road show A conference, sometimes repeated in severallocations, that disseminates information about newprocesses, materials, and techniques. Researcherscan exchange information and interact directly withpractitioners and can solicit information on currentproblems and research needs.

Questionnaire A call for response via paper, fax, or e-mail.Response rate often is low, but responses tend to bedetailed.

Open meeting Workshops, open houses, listening sessions, andjoint planning and prioritization meetings—oftenpart of other meetings—that provide opportunityfor open and voluntary exchanges of ideas.

Advisory boards, Established groups concerned with research and working groups, technology transfer. For example, Local Technical task forces, or Assistance Program (LTAP) center advisory boards technical councils include representatives of local and regional

agencies. A technical task force of a nationalassociation representing local or regional agenciesor practitioners could provide information aboutproblem areas and research needs.

Secondary contacts Organizations such as LTAP centers or professionalor technical organizations that can solicit andcompile information on problem areas and researchneeds from constituent target groups.

Websites Internet postings via FHWA, LTAP centers, andtechnical and professional associations can solicitproblem areas and research suggestions.

Annual meetings Organizational programs and gatherings offeropportunity to solicit information about problemareas and research suggestions fromrepresentatives of states, counties, municipalities,regional councils, towns, county engineers, transitoperators, and others.

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:52 PM Page 9

TR N

EWS

234

SEPT

EMBE

R–O

CTO

BER

2004

10

Reliance on others for information and technicalassistance. Because resources are limited, local andregional agencies often rely on other state, regional,and local agencies and on other sources—includingcolleagues, professional and technical organizations,LTAP centers, and industry representatives—forinformation and technical assistance. Contact with

these sources is often informal, and the purpose is tofind solutions to immediate problems.

References1. Highway Statistics. Federal Highway Adminstration, 2002.2. Brach, A. Stakeholder Involvement in FHWA’s Research and Tech-

nology Program. Prepared for the Research and TechnologyCoordinating Committee, TRB, Washington, D.C., May 2002.

Arecent National Research Council (NRC)report on stakeholder involvement inthe research program of the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture (USDA) offers somemodels for highway research programs.*Like highway research and technology, agri-cultural research and technology transferhave a long history of federal support. Fed-eral funding for agricultural research beganin 1862, and federal legislation launchedthe Cooperative State Research, Education,and Extension Service in 1887. The USDA researchbudget today is approximately $2.1 billion.

Many crosscutting, complementary, and contradic-tory forces are shaping priorities and resource alloca-tions for agricultural research and education, the NRCstudy notes. Federal funding includes congressional ear-marks for projects, facilities, instruments, and other aca-demic or research-related items. USDA strives forstakeholder input into priority-setting at all levels,through quality assurance mechanisms—such as exter-nal peer review of proposals and of ongoing and com-pleted research—to improve the scientific quality of allresearch activities.

USDA defines stakeholders as the customers, clients,or constituents of agricultural research—the people andorganizations using or affected by the research activities.Historically, the most visible stakeholders of agriculturalresearch have been producers, processors, and com-modity groups. With changes in perceptions, the scopeof agricultural research now includes public health andnutrition, environmental stewardship, and the socialand economic well-being of rural communities.

This has expanded the range of stakeholders, andthe new stakeholders have their own ideas and insightsfor research endeavors. Involving all stakeholdersincreases the challenge of combining diverse concernsinto a cohesive, feasible research program.

USDA uses several mechanisms to integrate stake-

holder input into the research process, includ-ing formally appointed, national advisoryboards and cooperative extension, county-levelmeetings. The agency recognizes the value ofinformal working relationships between scien-tists and users of research findings. Issues havearisen about how to ensure balanced inputand how to translate overwhelming amountsof information and diverse perspectives intofocused research priorities.

An advisory board draws members from 30constituencies identified in legislation. Other mecha-nisms include public workshops and listening sessions;state-level stakeholder input from field offices and uni-versities; stakeholder participation in research andextension grants; informal or ad hoc communicationsbetween USDA research offices and USDA regulatoryand program offices; and program office staff serving asfull-time liaisons at research offices.

In addition, USDA uses solicitations through the Fed-eral Register; targeted requests to underrepresentedconstituencies; informal contacts at scientific and pro-fessional meetings, science forums, and user workshops;and communication with other federal agencies, userorganizations, trade organizations, peer reviewers, andpanel managers. Many contract and agency researchershave informal networks for their own stakeholderinput.

The NRC study committee recommended convening anational summit every 2 to 3 years to engage USDAresearchers and a broad representation of stakeholders atthe local, national, and regional levels. The summit wouldassess national research needs and apprise stakeholders ofhow their input is being used in decision making.

A preparatory series of open workshops is under con-sideration, to be conducted by USDA research offices atlocal, state, and regional levels. The workshops wouldtap the national network of cooperative extension andother mechanisms at all levels to develop informationon research needs. The NRC study committee also sug-gested using the Internet to solicit input from stake-holders and to disseminate summit results tostakeholders and the research community.

Agricultural Research Taps into the Grass Roots

*Frontiers in Agricultural Research: Food, Health,Environment, and Communities. National Academies Press,Washington, D.C., 2003. (To order or to view online,www.nap.edu/.)

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:52 PM Page 10

I N V O LV I N G L O C A L A N D R E G I O N A L S TA K E H O L D E R S I N H I G H WAY R E S E A R C H

TR NEW

S 234 SEPTEMBER–O

CTOBER 2004

11

The author is SeniorProgram Officer, TRBDivision of Studies andInformation Services,and from 1999 to 2001served as StudyDirector for theNational ResearchCouncil–appointedCommittee for a Studyfor a Future StrategicHighway ResearchProgram.

What are some considerations forengaging stakeholders in transpor-tation research programs? A gen-eral framework for engagementwas developed for the Research and TechnologyCoordinating Committee (RTCC), a speciallyappointed TRB committee that advises the FederalHighway Administration.

The framework draws on the practices and experi-ences of several federal agencies, as well as on researchprograms sponsored by state departments of trans-portation (DOT) and by industry (see box, page 15).For the framework, a stakeholder is defined as a per-son or group with a stake or an interest in transporta-tion research and technology (R&T) programs.

Involvement implies that stakeholders are givenopportunities to shape the research program.Through appropriate involvement, stakeholders cancontribute by

Helping to define research problems andsuggesting projects to address the problems;

Ensuring the relevance of the research; Maintaining the focus of the research; Providing quality control by reviewing pro-

posals and ongoing research; Evaluating the research results; Briefing potential implementers; and Developing support for the research program.

The framework coordinates four elements: the typeof stakeholder, the purpose of the research program,the stage of the research management process, and themechanisms for stakeholder involvement. By identi-fying the most effective roles for different stakeholdersat various stages of the research management process,the framework suggests the appropriate mechanismsfor involvement (Table 1, page 12).

StakeholdersThe framework distinguishes four types of stake-holders:

Sponsors pay for the research and are responsi-ble for the research program. Sponsors typically areconcerned with the program’s content and manage-ment—choosing the most beneficial research proj-ects, managing the resources, and deliveringhigh-quality results.

Scientific and technical experts conduct theresearch, as well as the peer review of research pro-posals, ongoing research, and research results for sci-entific and technical excellence.

Users implement the research results and mayinclude government agencies, private-sector firms,standards-setting groups, and private citizens.

A Framework forStakeholder InvolvementManaging Research with a Focus on UsersA N N M . B R A C H

Demo of aggregate recovery from foreslope during Motorgrader OperatorTraining in South Dakota.

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:52 PM Page 11

TR N

EWS

234

SEPT

EMBE

R–O

CTO

BER

2004

12

Affected parties are any others who are likely toexperience an effect of the research, even if they donot pay for it, conduct it, or directly use the results.For example, highway contractors may be affected byresearch that changes road-building practices byshifting the economics of paving materials; environ-mental groups are interested in research about airquality models or about incentives to use alternativefuels or other transportation modes.

Local and regional agencies with transportationresponsibilities are the potential users of transporta-tion research results. As users, they implement a newtechnology or analytical method. However, they alsomay play other roles—for example, technical expertsfrom local and regional agencies may serve as peerreviewers for research projects.

Local agencies may be affected by research resultsimplemented by others. For instance, the market forpaving material may shift due to innovations adopted

by the state DOT; or environmental analysis proce-dures developed by federal agencies may influencelocal transportation plans; or the trend to larger vehi-cles may affect decisions about roadway safety.

Program Purposes Three research program purposes were identified forthe framework:

To expand the knowledge base and develophuman capital. This type of program is oriented toresearch and training, not to solving specific practi-cal problems.

To improve operations in the short term. Some-times referred to as problem-solving research, thischaracterizes many mission-oriented research pro-grams in the public or private sector.

To develop opportunities for the future. Thisresearch aims at practical or mission needs andopportunities that are in the future, not immediate.

TABLE 1 Framework for Stakeholder Involvement

To expand the knowledge baseand develop human capital.

Periodic one-time panels orworkshops to provide input atthe highest levels of Stages 1through 5.

Expert panels to review andevaluate the research.

Periodic one-time mechanismsto review results and providefeedback in early stages.

To improve operations in the short term.

Standing committees with fullrange of stakeholders formajor program areas tooversee the process.

Subcommittees or panels togive input on specific programsand projects.

Ad hoc program or projectpanels involving experts (forscientific review) and users (for relevance review). May be the same assubcommittees used in Stages 1 through 5.

Panels may continue into thesestages, with emphasis on userinput, but particularmechanisms depend onresearch results and type ofresearch product.

To develop opportunities for the future.

Special standing committee ofexperts and users with visionand an appreciation of longer-term investment.

Periodic one-time panels orworkshops for input onopportunities in specific areas.

Ad hoc expert panels for theduration of a project or one-time panels brought in atspecific points for grantawards, review, and evaluation.

No special mechanism. Thestanding committee wouldreceive input from experts anduse it to program futureactivities or to pass on resultsto short-term programs.

Purpose of Research ProgramLeadStake-holderType

Sponsor

Scientificand

TechnicalExperts

Users

Stage of ResearchManagement

Process

1. Identify desiredgoals or outcomes

2. Identify researchopportunities

3. Prioritize researchgoals

4. Allocate researchfunds

5. Develop problemstatements(or requests forproposals, ifextramural)

6. Choose researchers(if extramural)

7. Review quality ofongoing research

8. Evaluate andinterpret researchresults

9. Implement research

results

10. Provide feedback oneffectiveness ofimplemented results

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:52 PM Page 12

TR NEW

S 234 SEPTEMBER–O

CTOBER 2004

13

Although local and regional stakeholders may havean interest in all three purposes, improving operationsin the short term is likely their strongest interest. Thistype of research may rely on problem solving andanalysis; develop specific tools, technologies, or meth-ods; or supply documentation for policies, guidelines,regulations, and consensus standards. The overridingobjective is to implement effective solutions—thismakes the involvement of users important.

Stages in the Process The research management process was divided into 10stages, sorted into three groups according to the typeof stakeholder expected to play the strongest role. The10 stages refer to research management and thereforedo not include the conduct of research by scientific ortechnical experts.

The first group of stages encompasses the initial orprogramming phase: (1) identify desired goals or out-comes; (2) identify research opportunities; (3) priori-tize research goals; (4) allocate research funds; and(5) develop problem statements or requests for pro-posals if the research is extramural. These stages usu-ally are guided by the sponsor, who is paying for theprogram and who is accountable for the conduct andoutcome of the research.

The next step—(6) choose researchers for extra-mural research programs—usually is carried out bythe sponsor, but the advice of technical and scientificexperts often has a determining influence. This steptherefore may be included with the sponsor tasks or inthe second group, which involves tasks generally per-formed by scientific and technical experts: (7) reviewthe quality of ongoing research and (8) evaluate andinterpret the research results.

The third group involves two stages: (9) imple-ment research results and (10) provide feedback onthe effectiveness of the implementation. If Stages 9and 10 are carried out, it is by users.

The stages are not exclusionary—all stakeholdershave roles at each stage. The incentives, interests, andspecific talents of each type of stakeholder, however,will be most effective at the stages indicated.

Involvement MechanismsResearch managers rely on four types of mechanismsfor involving stakeholders:

Informal networks. Networks of technical andscientific peers, sometimes including users or cus-tomers, are developed through professional societies,scientific meetings, and other gatherings. Examplesin the field of transportation include committees ofthe American Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials, the Institute of Transporta-

tion Engineers, and TRB. Local and regional trans-portation agencies can look to the American PublicWorks Association, the Association of MetropolitanPlanning Organizations, the National Association ofCounty Engineers, and others to develop informalnetworks.

These networks are informal because their influ-ence on specific research programs depends on whotalks to whom and on how the participants translatethe information into research priorities or projects.Contacts may reinforce a research priority, suggest anew research focus, or lead to a change in approach.Sometimes an informal network stimulates a cooper-ative venture that leverages resources or expands thescope or scale of an effort.

Formal mechanisms with open or unspecifiedinvolvement. Formal mechanisms gain broad input,for example through release of a research plan forpublic comment or through the establishment of awebsite for input or for interactive dialogue withstakeholders. Federal agencies and national organi-zations often use these mechanisms to reach anationwide audience. In principle, anyone may pro-vide input through these mechanisms.

Formal mechanisms with specific stakeholdersover a period of time. Formal groups, such as com-mittees, panels, or boards, can be established to pro-vide input into a research program. The membershipmay extend over a period of time to provide morethan a snapshot of the program. Research institutesoften rely on formal groups, as do the cooperativeresearch programs administered by TRB. The groups,which may include representatives of the sponsoringorganizations, often function as advisory boards todetermine priorities and funding.

Local chapter meetingsof national associationsmay offer keyopportunities forengaging stakeholders inhighway research.

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:52 PM Page 13

TR N

EWS

234

SEPT

EMBE

R–O

CTO

BER

2004

14

One-time formal mechanisms with specific stake-holders. Groups of specific, invited individuals maybe assembled on a one-time basis. This approachincludes focus groups, meetings, and workshopsconvened for a specific purpose.

Table 2 shows some of the advantages and disad-vantages of each of these stakeholder involvementmechanisms.

User ScenarioThe framework presents two scenarios for involvinglocal and regional transportation agencies in trans-portation research programs—the user scenario andthe sponsor scenario. The user scenario is the morecommon of the two—local and regional agencies areprimarily in the user role in research programs spon-sored by federal agencies and state DOTs, universities,and the private sector.

Rosenbloom and coauthors note that this sce-nario is dominated by a top-down flow of informa-

tion (see article, page 22). Local and regional agen-cies typically are the recipients of research resultsthrough training, manuals, and specifications. Theirinvolvement in the research management processoccurs at Stage 9, implementation of the researchresults, with some participation in Stage 10, provid-ing feedback on effectiveness.

The framework indicates that users have thestrongest role in these two stages. Nonetheless, asRosenbloom and coauthors observe, the feedbackmechanisms—or bottom-up information flows—areweak, limiting the ability of local and regional stake-holders to shape research programs.

Ideally, user involvement should occur at all stages.Local and regional involvement during Stages 1through 5, when research needs and priorities areestablished, can increase the relevance of the researchto the stakeholders. Local and regional agencies alsocan participate as technical experts—their expertiseduring Stages 6 through 8 can keep the researchfocused on local and regional needs and can provide

Mechanism Advantages Disadvantages

Informal Networks • Can use meetings or other communication opportunitiesto save time, costs, and administrative effort.

• Can be fluid and flexible. • Usually content-rich instead of process-oriented.• Can include frank communication of negative results or

sensitive information not easily revealed publicly or inwritten documents.

• Tend to be highly technical; may not easily involve usersor other stakeholders.

• Can become closed or overly traditional.• Difficult to identify and track for accountability.

Formal Mechanismswith Open orUnspecifiedInvolvement

• Can be open and broad-based.• Can save time and administrative and travel costs.

• Can produce a large amount of unstructured input.• Difficulty targeting critical stakeholders.• Possible bias in the use of web-based approaches

because of unequal access or lack of facility with thetechnology.

• Restricted to material that individuals are willing to putin writing for a public forum.

• Lack of face-to-face communication or group dialogue;temporally dispersed.

Formal Mechanismswith SpecificStakeholders over aPeriod of Time

• Able to target specific stakeholders and providepredetermined representation.

• Can be structured to provide input at the time and in theformat desired.

• Facilitates stakeholder familiarity with a program overtime.

• Can provide face-to-face communication.• Provides for accountability through formal reports.

• Can be time-consuming to organize.• Can involve meeting and travel expenses. • May not be flexible because of long lead times to plan

and prepare for meetings. • May become too formal or exclusive.• Must meet requirements of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (for federal agencies).

One-Time FormalMechanisms withSpecific Stakeholders

• Allows stakeholders to be targeted while enablingbroader involvement because of the groups’ changingmakeup.

• Can provide face-to-face communication, as well aswritten reports.

• Can tailor scale, scope, and timing to changing needsand available resources without disrupting anestablished process.

• Does not provide for follow-up and accountability. • Requires educating new groups. • May be preempted or postponed in favor of more

urgent activities because of the lack of a regularschedule and procedures (which provide discipline forstanding committees).

TABLE 2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Stakeholder Involvement Mechanisms

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:53 PM Page 14

TR NEW

S 234 SEPTEMBER–O

CTOBER 2004

15

insight on how to tailor research results to local andregional contexts. This involvement, in turn, willimprove the ability of regional and local stakeholdersto implement the research results.

Limitations on time, money, and personnel, how-ever, can prevent participation by local and regionalagencies. This starts a vicious cycle: the resources arenot devoted to involvement, so the program does notgain relevance to local and regional stakeholders; then,because the research is not relevant, the potentialstakeholders are not willing to expend resources oninvolvement.

Sponsor ScenarioResource limitations on both sides can initiate a cycleof nonparticipation. Sponsors are accountable formeeting the primary stakeholders’ needs, which maynot be the same as those of local and regional stake-holders. The second scenario—the sponsor sce-nario—avoids this problem by casting local or regionalagencies as sponsors of the research program.

This scenario, however, is rare. The MinnesotaLocal Road Research Board and the Iowa HighwayResearch Board are two examples (see article, page 4).These cooperative efforts involve state and local offi-cials, as well as university and private-sector repre-sentatives, but local transportation officials—such ascounty engineers and city directors of streets—drivethe research programs. As research program spon-sors—who therefore have ownership—local andregional stakeholders can influence priorities, bud-gets, and programming; as users, they can tailor theprogram to their needs.

Local and regional transportation agencies facemany of the same types of issues as state and federalagencies, but in a different context. For example, localand regional agencies are responsible for residentialroads and streets, which may have direct impact onlocal communities and businesses.

Moreover, other infrastructure or public worksresponsibilities demand the attention of local andregional agencies or may require consideration forresearch along with transportation concerns. Localand regional agencies typically have limited financial,technological, and human resources, and many oftheir research needs may focus on specific, practicalproblem-solving or on the testing and evaluation ofnew products.

The user-sponsor’s sense of ownership is likely totranslate into successful implementation of the researchresults. When the same people use the results, providefeedback, and develop the research program, the pro-gram can be easily adjusted to meet stakeholders’ needs.

Another benefit of the user-sponsor role is that thehands-on involvement trains stakeholders in the

nature, benefits, and processes of research. Throughsponsorship, local and regional transportation pro-fessionals actively identify problems and learn toarticulate the problems into researchable issues. Theyinteract with technically oriented colleagues andother experts who perform and review research proj-ects. This professional capacity building can makelocal and regional transportation agencies moreinterested in participating in research programs spon-sored by others and can promote interaction amongprograms at federal, state, and local levels.

Sponsorship of a research program, of course,requires funding. With the budgetary limitationsthat most jurisdictions face, the most feasible way to begin may be through a partnership of sev-eral local and regional agencies with state or federalagencies or a university. Modest contributions from partners could jump-start a small researchprogram, which could grow as experience and ben-efits are gained.

Sources for the Framework

The framework developed for the Researchand Technology Coordinating Committeedrew on stakeholder involvement mechanismsused by the following agencies and initiatives:

National Institute of Standards andTechnology,

National Cancer Institute of the NationalInstitutes of Health,

National Science Foundation, Agricultural Research Service of the

Department of Agriculture, Electric Power Research Institute, Health Effects Institute, Construction Industry Institute, National Cooperative Highway Research

Program, National Highway Research and

Technology Partnership, National Operations Dialogue, Technical Activities Division of the

Transportation Research Board, and The Transportation Research Board

Committee for a Study for a Future StrategicHighway Research Program.

The framework study is documented in apaper by A. Brach, “A Taxonomy for Stake-holder Involvement in Public-Sector Transpor-tation Research and Technology Programs,”Public Works Management and Policy (in press).

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:53 PM Page 15

TR N

EWS

234

SEPT

EMBE

R–O

CTO

BER

2004

16

Sponsor OutreachSponsors can determine the level and effectiveness ofstakeholder involvement, although they may not beable to overcome all of the resource-related constraintsof local and regional agencies. Sponsors can improvecommunication with local and regional professionalsand can increase the motivation for involvement.

Building strong relationships with stakeholdersrequires two-way communication. Research sponsorsmay start by reaching out to national and state associ-ations of county engineers or metropolitan planningorganizations. Attending meetings of these associa-tions can provide the opportunity to engage local andregional professionals from around the country or thestate and to learn about their issues. The next stepmay be to visit sites and gain direct acquaintance withlocal needs.

These steps provide some first-hand knowledgeand begin to build a bridge between different cul-tures—whether federal, state, regional, local, rural, orurban. Local and regional representatives will be morelikely to get involved in research programs thatdemonstrate genuine understanding of their needsand that present the opportunity to address theseneeds. The sponsor should provide a clear avenue forinput and show that the input has influence on thedirection of the program.

State and federal research programs may embedlocal and regional needs in other issues, so that the rel-evance of the research may not be apparent to localand regional representatives. Sponsors therefore needto demonstrate and clarify how their programs addresslocal needs.

Working closely with local and regional expertsduring the research phase will ensure relevance. Addi-

tional research may be needed to address specific con-cerns, and research contracts should be structured tomake this possible. During and after the conduct ofresearch, sponsors should work closely with leadersand technical experts in local and regional agencies toidentify methods for effective implementation of theresearch results, such as demonstration projects, train-ing, and road shows.

Successful InvolvementA successful approach to the involvement of local andregional stakeholders in transportation research pro-grams will exhibit several characteristics:

Transparency. The process should be welldefined and the steps should be communicatedclearly, so that stakeholders are aware of when andhow they may influence the research program.

Formality and informality. Some formal proce-dures are necessary for accountability, but opportu-nities for informal input broaden participation.

Experts and users. Input from stakeholders whoare scientific or technical experts and users con-tributes to the technical quality and to the relevanceof the research.

Tangible product. A tangible product, such as aplan, a report, or a road map, should document theprocess and the outcomes of stakeholder involve-ment.

Follow-up. The effects of stakeholder involve-ment on the research program and its results shouldbe documented.

Appropriate scale. The process should reflectthe size of the research program and the degree ofinfluence that various stakeholders can expect. Asmall or heavily earmarked program may warrant asmaller investment in stakeholder involvement thana program that is large or that has significant discre-tionary funding. An effort must be made to developreasonable expectations for all parties.

Gaining FocusEffective stakeholder involvement requires commu-nication, time, money, and planning. Above all, theinstitutional culture must have a clear focus on thepurposes of the research, on the stakeholder groups,and on stakeholder interests and potential contribu-tions.

The framework provides managers of transporta-tion research programs with a tool to gain this focus.The framework can assist managers in thinking abouthow to improve involvement by local and regionaltransportation agencies. Local and regional agenciescan use the framework to design research programswith strong ownership from their constituencies.

Innovative equipment andtechniques are demonstrated toparticipants in the regionalLTAP-sponsored RoadwayManagement Conference.

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:53 PM Page 16

I N V O LV I N G L O C A L A N D R E G I O N A L S TA K E H O L D E R S I N H I G H WAY R E S E A R C H

The Federal HighwayAdministration’s (FHWA)Freight ProfessionalDevelopment programinstructs staff of statedepartments oftransportation andmetropolitan planningorganizations on how toaddress the growth infreight flows. Theprogram offers computertraining on site or via the web.

TR NEW

S 234 SEPTEMBER–O

CTOBER 2004

17

The author isTransportationSpecialist,Turner–FairbankHighway ResearchCenter, FederalHighwayAdministration,McLean, Virginia.

Highway research has yielded advancesand innovations that have contributedto improvements in all aspects of the highway system, including longer-lasting pavements, structurally sound bridges, andadvanced traffic systems. Transportation managersrely more and more on technology and innovation tomeet the challenges of increasing demands, compet-ing needs, limited resources, and greater expectations.

The necessary technologies and innovations onlycan be developed and deployed through the carefulconsideration and coordination of a well-definedresearch and technology (R&T) program. The FederalHighway Administration (FHWA) has worked closelywith its many partners and stakeholders in highwayR&T to develop innovative technologies that save lives,

time, and money. FHWA also works with its partnersand stakeholders to improve its R&T program and todeploy technology and innovation more effectively.

FHWA supports transportation innovation in sev-eral ways. As a convener, the agency brings the R&Tcommunity together to define priorities and futuredirections. As an advocate for innovation, the agencyassists in implementation, tracks the benefits, andensures that key decision makers and stakeholdersknow and understand the benefits. In addition, FHWAassumes a leadership role in vital national researchareas that require large investments or that have ascope too broad for other programs.

The agency has benefited from engaging regionaland local partners and stakeholders in the R&Tprocess. Regional and local jurisdictions own and

Instituting Programs forStakeholder OutreachFederal Highway Administration Initiatives for Local-Level Involvement in Research and TechnologyJ O E C O N W A Y

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:53 PM Page 17

TR N

EWS

234

SEPT

EMBE

R–O

CTO

BER

2004

18

maintain 76 percent of the highway miles in theUnited States—paved and unpaved, in rural and urbansettings (1). Regional and local involvement, therefore,is critical to meeting future transportation challenges,as indicated by the following examples and by thedescription of the Local Technical Assistance Program(see box, page 19).

Training to Move Freight Steadily increasing freight traffic throughout theUnited States—rail, truck, marine, and air cargo—isstraining the transportation network, exacerbating thegrowth in passenger traffic. From 1998 through 2020,domestic freight volumes are projected to increase by67 percent (2).

Accommodating the increase in freight trafficdepends on the skills of the people who build, main-tain, and operate the transportation system. Educatingand training the workforce are of paramount impor-tance in improving freight transportation productivity,safety, and security.

In 2003, FHWA launched the Freight ProfessionalDevelopment (FPD) program to assist staff at stateDOTs and metropolitan planning organizations(MPOs) in gaining the skills and knowledge to addressthe growth in freight flows. The goal is to assist localand regional planners in considering freight infra-structure and operational improvements during thetransportation development process, to improvemobility, economic growth, and global connectivity.The program will engage the academic community tointegrate freight issues into transportation planning

courses and other academic programs. “Enhancing the freight knowledge and skills of

transportation professionals is critical in bridging theknowledge gap between public- and private-sector busi-ness processes,” observes Scott Johnson, transportationspecialist, FHWA Office of Freight Management andOperations. “Designing and delivering a professionaldevelopment program on multimodal freight in a col-laborative and inclusive environment will help.”

Johnson’s office is working with the FHWA Officeof Planning, Environment, and Realty to deploy theinitial elements of a program. “Already our customersand partners can’t seem to get enough of the trainingand technical assistance resources now available,” hereports.

The FPD program’s objectives are to

Enhance the freight-related skills and knowl-edge of transportation planners and other profes-sionals,

Foster intermodal approaches to advancefreight productivity and security,

Engage private-sector stakeholders in projectdevelopment, and

Improve freight planning and decision mak-ing at the state and MPO levels.

The program offers training, education, a resourcelibrary, and technical assistance. The training is pack-aged in courses, workshops, conferences, and semi-nars; some are offered via the web, so that participants’costs and time away from the office are minimal.

Input from private-sector stakeholders, as well asfrom state DOT and MPO partners, has contributed tothe development of the program. The FWHA Office ofFreight Management and Operations, in partnershipwith the Office of Planning, Environment, and Realtyand the Resource Center’s Technical Service Team onPlanning, hosted workshops to gain insights and per-spectives from representatives of various entities,including the American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Associa-tion of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, theAmerican Association of Port Authorities, the Ameri-can Transportation Research Institute, the FederalRailroad Administration, state DOTs, and MPOs.

The FPD program serves as the foundation forU.S. DOT efforts to engage the academic communityin issues involving the movement of goods. U.S. DOTis partnering with academic institutions to integratepolicy and program information on multimodal pub-lic freight transportation into related courses anddegree programs.

The resource library consists of an Internet data-base of freight-related information, including state-of-

Sign installation and maintenance are activities that FHWA is promoting at thelocal level to enhance roadway safety.

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:53 PM Page 18

TR NEW

S 234 SEPTEMBER–O

CTOBER 2004

19

Across the United States, 38,000 local agencies—forsmall and large cities, rural and urban counties,and tribal governments—maintain nearly 3 millionmiles of roads, including approximately 29,000 bridges.The Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) andTribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP) operatecenters to help these agencies tap into new technol-ogy, information, and training, to operate more effi-ciently and safely. The programs move innovativetransportation technologies out of the laboratory, offthe shelf, and into the hands of the people who main-tain local streets and roads.

LTAP centers provide workshops, road shows,demonstrations, computer training, distance learning,conference seminars, and courses in the field and inclassrooms. LTAP centers stage more than 5,000 train-ing events for more than 135,000 participants annually.Each LTAP center customizes the training for the spe-cific, local needs of the participants.

LTAP newsletters and publications deliver key trans-portation resources to local agencies, including tech-nical information, research updates, legislative andregulatory news, and training opportunities. Each year,

LTAP libraries respond to nearly 150,000 requests formanuals, reports, videos, and CD-ROMs. In addition,the centers provide direct technical information, prob-lem solving, and referrals in response to more than35,000 inquiries annually.

New LTAP initiatives include the Roads Scholar pro-gram, a training curriculum to advance professionals intheir careers; and the Safety Circuit Riders pilot pro-gram, which sends skilled professionals to local agen-cies to conduct safety training workshops.

FHWA started LTAP in 1982 to help improve theskills and knowledge of local transportation

providers through training, technical assistance, andtechnology transfer. LTAP includes a network of 51centers in every state and Puerto Rico, plus 7 regionalTTAP centers serving tribal governments.

FHWA provides the centers with annual grantfunding, which is matched or exceeded by fundingfrom the state DOTs, universities, and center initia-tives. More than two-thirds of the centers are housedat universities, and state DOTs sponsor the others.The program meets the growing demand for its ser-vices through innovative partnerships, customizeddelivery, and additional support.

In recent years, LTAP has established agreementswith the American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Ameri-can Public Works Association, and the National Asso-ciation of County Engineers, to work together tostrengthen the skills and knowledge of state andlocal public agency providers. In addition, manyLTAP centers have integrated their services intoother transportation education efforts, such as thecurricula of four-year universities and two-year pro-grams, as well as the continuing education offeredby trade associations.

“LTAP is an effective network for implementingtechnologies that solve problems,” comments JohnHorsley, Executive Director of AASHTO. “State andlocal transportation agencies must keep strong linesof communication to conduct their business effec-tively. LTAP plays an important role in maintainingopen lines of communication.”

Kentucky Local Technical Assistance Program Centerconducts a Roads Scholar session on drainage.

Assisting Locally, Benefiting Nationally

American Indian participants listen to session onrural roads drainage during the 6th National TTAPConference in Albuquerque, New Mexico, inFebruary 2004.

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:53 PM Page 19

TR N

EWS

234

SEPT

EMBE

R–O

CTO

BER

2004

20

the-art practices from a variety of sources—such asU.S. DOT, state DOTs, MPOs, regional councils, pro-fessional associations, and the academic community.The monthly “Talking Freight” seminar series, offeredthrough web conferencing, provides a flexible, no-feeway for professionals to broaden knowledge anddevelop skills.

The Freight Planning Peer Exchange offers a forumfor information sharing via e-mail, with more than 550public- and private-sector subscribers.1 The FreightPeer-to-Peer Program includes a database of freightexperts who provide guidance to new practitioners, aswell as seasoned veterans. The program also offerstravel assistance to support the peer exchange.

“FHWA’s Freight Professional Development Pro-gram provides the kind of information and educationthat state and local planners have needed since the pas-sage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Cen-tury,” notes Erik L. Johnson, Statewide TransportationPlanner at Virginia DOT. “Transportation planners withexpertise in freight are scarce. Also, few public trans-portation decision makers recognize the importance ofmaintaining the flow of goods through freight-focusedtransportation planning and champion that cause. The

FPD program will have long-term benefits in raisingthe awareness of public officials about the needs offreight transportation users.”

Charting Paths of TravelThe Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP)—jointly funded by FHWA, the Federal Transit Admin-istration, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation,and the Environmental Protection Agency—provideslocal and regional agencies with tools for traveldemand forecasting and air quality analysis, for allmodes of travel. TMIP started about 10 years ago as aresearch program, gradually turning its focus todeployment and technology implementation. The pro-gram delivers assistance and training in new andimproved technologies, as well as quality assurance forthe processes.

“We look at what the demand for travel is, howmany people want to go from A to B, and what methodof transportation they take,” reports Frederick W.Ducca, Travel Model Team Leader, FHWA Office ofInterstate and Border Planning. “We then translatethat into how many cars there are and which sectionsof the roadways they want to use. We need to knowwhat the patterns are going to look like 5 and 10 yearsfrom now.”

Within FHWA, TMIP works with the Transporta-tion Planning and Capacity Building Program, toenhance the capabilities of state, regional, and localtransportation staffs to meet planning needs. MPOsand state DOTs are viewed as direct clients. The part-nership makes data available to the general public onthe Internet2 and offers training programs for stateDOTs and other entities.

Plans are under way to expand the scope of TMIPto support other techniques, such as collecting dataabout where people live and work, activity patterns,and land use forecasting. For example, TMIP alsomay contribute to environmental impact assessmentsby providing travel forecasting data. The tools anddata can be used for safety, security, and emergencyevent analysis.

State DOTs have benefited from the training, work-shops, seminars, and peer reviews provided by TMIP.“TMIP has been valuable to the California Depart-ment of Transportation [Caltrans], both in providinga forum for the exchange of ideas and in providingtraining opportunities,” states Charles Chenu, SeniorTransportation Planner, Caltrans. “In particular, therecent TMIP Model Validation and Calibration semi-nar gave many participants the first opportunity tolearn these skills, which is often overlooked in therush to complete projects.”

Student breakdown of Travel Model Improvement Program and National HighwayInstitute seminars and courses shows high enrollment by metropolitan planningorganizations, local governments, and transit operators.

Trai

nin

g C

ou

rses

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Travel Surveys

Intro Travel Forecasting

Advanced Travel Forecasting

Estimating Emissions

Land Use Seminar

Validation Seminar

Number of Students

Federal Gov’t

State DOTs and DEQs

MPOs, Local Gov’t, TransitOperators

Private Sector

Others

Grader provides a smoothergravel surface to increasesafety on rural low-volumeroad. FHWA is workingwith partners to increaselocal-level adoption ofaffordable, practical safety measures.

1 http://listserv.utk.edu/archives/fhwafp.html

2 www.mcb.fhwa.dot.gov

00_TRN_234.qxd 10/18/04 12:53 PM Page 20

TR NEW

S 234 SEPTEMBER–O

CTOBER 2004

21

Focusing on SafetyCoordination, communication, and cooperation con-tinue to grow steadily between the FHWA Office ofSafety and partners such as the Institute of Transpor-tation Engineers, the American Traffic Safety ServicesAssociation, the National Association of Towns andTownships, the National Association of County Engi-neers, the American Public Works Association, andthe American Road and Transportation Builders Asso-ciation. Collective ideas, resources, and efforts arefocusing on saving lives and reducing injuries on U.S.streets and highways. The partners provide valuableinsights to FHWA in developing, refining, and imple-menting safety programs.

Office of Safety staff regularly meet with represen-tatives of these organizations to exchange informa-tion on current and needed safety practices,procedures, and products. The goal is to share initia-tives and lessons learned, so that emerging safety prod-ucts can be timely, effective, and useful.

Successful initiatives and lessons that arise in onejurisdiction can be applied or adapted by others. Min-nesota DOT’s “Research Library” website,3 for exam-ple, offers access to transportation research andpublications, so that county engineers and others canlearn more about new technologies that may help tosolve specific problems. Mendocino County, Califor-nia, is conducting a two-day showcase of safety tech-nologies; the county has instituted a low-cost projectto reduce the number of traffic-related fatalities andinjuries on rural roads.4

Another example of extended information sharingis the Safety Circuit Rider Program (see box, page 19).The Office of Safety, together with the Office of Pro-fessional Development and the Federal Lands High-way Division, is funding four pilot programs that willbe housed in a Local Technical Assistance Programand Tribal Technical Assistance Program center.

The 1-year pilot program will send out knowl-edgeable staff to provide advice, technical assistance,and training on best practices for reducing trafficcrashes on two-lane roadways and local roads. Thetraining and technical assistance will include such top-ics as safety audits of local roadways, reliable data col-lection techniques, low-cost safety measures, andother programs to reduce fatalities involving roadwaydepartures, intersections, and pedestrians.

“Our approach is to plan and develop with the enduser in mind,” says Rudolph Umbs, Chief HighwaySafety Engineer at FHWA. “We want to develop, share,and deliver products, practices, and procedures thatare needed, usable, and effective.”

Visible Research“We recognize the need to ensure that our research ismore visible,” says Dennis Judycki, FHWA’s Associ-ate Administrator for Research, Development, andTechnology. “Our corporate goal is to communicatewhat our research and technology program is, andultimately, to ensure that we work effectively withour partners and stakeholders to deploy technologyand innovations.”

FHWA has developed the Corporate Master Planfor Research and Deployment of Technology and Inno-vation, which comprises 26 commitments, framedaround 7 guiding principles (3). One principle is toinvolve stakeholders throughout the R&T process.

Under the master plan, the R&T Leadership Teamis responsible for improving agency-wide businessrelated to research and to the deployment of tech-nology and innovation. The team works closely withstakeholders.

“The corporate master plan emphasizes stake-holder input throughout the process, and it empha-sizes implementation,” comments Joe Toole, FHWA’sAssociate Administrator for Professional and Corpo-rate Development. “Stakeholder input helps usunderstand local needs and address those needs witha coordinated approach. The highway communityonly needs one research agenda—with limited bud-gets, we can’t afford duplication of effort. Ideally, allof our work should be integrated. The corporatemaster plan will help create a framework for thatsynergy between FHWA and stakeholders.”

FHWA is addressing opportunities to engagelocal, regional, and other stakeholders for input intothe R&T program. The extent of stakeholderinvolvement may vary from project to project;nonetheless, from agenda setting to merit review andperformance evaluation, FHWA will be looking toinvolve stakeholders at all levels directly in technol-ogy research and implementation, recognizing thatstate, regional, and local stakeholders ultimately areresponsible for implementation.

References1. Highway Statistics 2002. Federal Highway Administration,

U.S. Department of Transportation, 2004.2. Freight News: Freight Analysis Framework. FHWA-OP-

03+006(R), Office of Freight Management and Operations,Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department ofTransportation, October 2002, p.1. www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_news/FAF/talkingfreight_faf.htm.

3. Corporate Master Plan for Research and Deployment of Tech-nology and Innovation. FHWA-RD-03-077, Federal High-way Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,April 2003. www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/policy/cmp/ 03077.htm.

FHWA’s CorporateMaster Plan promotesthe in