Meeting Notes
RAC Leadership Teleconference 1:30 – 3:30 p.m. Eastern time August 13, 2009
Participants: Sandra Larson (chair), Rick Collins (vice chair), Steve Pepin, Dale Peabody, Bill Zaccagnino, Chris Hedges, Chris Jenks, Ron Curb, Tommy Nantung, Darryll Dockstader, Wes Lum, Clint Adler, Mara Campbell, Debra Elston, Gary Frederick, Jeffrey Brown, Skip Paul, Jim McDonnell, Ken Kobetsky, Ron Curb.
Decisions and action items are underscored.
Minutes from last meeting (attachment)
A MOTION (Dale Peabody/Rick Collins) to accept the minutes of the previous two meetings was APPROVED.
Old Business
AASHTO Report:
Jim McDonnell distributed an updated spreadsheet listing AASHTO technical service programs and the amounts contributed by each state (Attachment E). A column has been added to indicate whether each program has been given approval by FHWA for 100% federal SP&R funding. Jim is preparing letters requesting waivers for other engineering programs on the list and is planning to expand and update the list which he will distribute when available. Jim indicated the invoices are sent to the CEO in each state with copies to the relevant AASHTO committee representative. Wes asked Jim if they could add the state contact for each program in an additional column.
Rick Collins stated that it is still difficult to know with certainty which states have agreed to participate in each program. Wes Lum also noted confusion associated with the term “pooled fund” often used in connection with the AASHTO programs. AASHTO is trying to refer to these as “technical service programs” to eliminate confusion with the FHWA Pooled Fund program. There is also some confusion about whether a program needs to be approved for SP&R funds as well as approved for the match waiver. In some states, SP&R funds are not used for the state contributions. Sandra distributed an email from Jim containing language from 23 USC 505 on eligible expenses for 100% federal funding (Attachment G). Sandra asked that the RAC Administrative Task Force work with AASHTO and FHWA to examine and clarify the issues around the use of SP&R funds for AASHTO technical service programs.
Appendix F lists current state commitments to two AASHTOWare projects: Darwin ME and TurboRelo.
1 TRB Report (Chris Jenks)
2011 NCHRP problem statements are due September 15th. The Airport Cooperative Research Program governing board met recently to pick FY2010 program, and an announcement of the program was distributed and posted on the TRB website. Chris encouraged RAC members to submit panel nominations by September 21st. The Transit Cooperative Research Program received 99 problem statements for the next fiscal year. The TCRP oversight committee (TOPS) will meet the first week in November to select new projects. The Freight and Hazardous Materials governing boards have scheduled meetings in the coming weeks to select new projects.
RITA: No Report
FHWA:
Deb Elson noted that RITA has been directed to put together a “distracted driver” summit meeting in cooperation with FHWA and NHTSA.
New Business
SCOR/RAC Research Authorization Working Group Update
Sandra provided a list of working group members (Attachment C) who recently held their first meeting by conference call. Over the coming weeks, the group will be asked to provide comments on House Bill 2569. Once the authorization process gets fully underway, this group will support AASHTO with respect to the research provisions. A monthly status report will be provided during the RAC Officers’ conference call. Clint Adler has made initial contact with ASCE and hopes to identify a contact to assist the working group.
Task Force Updates: See web status report at: http://www.transportation.org/sites/research/docs/RAC%20Task%20Forces%20Status %20Report%20(August%207,%202009).doc
Moy Biswas has stepped down as Chair of the Administrative Task Force. Steve Pepin and Skip Paul have been appointed as new co-chairs. The Administrative Task Force is currently developing recommendations to SCOR on NCHRP’s role in updating AASHTO publications.
2 The Administration Task Force is to be combined with the Education and Training Task Force. Steve Pepin has spoken to Gary Frederick regarding the merging of the two task forces and there will be a transition period to review their working plan
The Education and Training Task Force is working on two main projects: a formal mentoring program for new RAC members and “SCOR 101” – an orientation program for new SCOR members.
The Funding Task Force is seeking a new chair.
Nancy Chinlund and Barbara Harder have been added to the Future Needs Task Force. This group anticipates populating the prototype Coordination and Collaboration research website with a number of “futures-oriented” web sites by the end of the summer.
Among other activities, the Program Management and Quality Task Force is working on actions to implement recommendations of the most recent NCHRP peer exchange.
The Value of Research Task Force is reviewing a “value of research” brochure developed for SCOR.
The Transportation Knowledge Network Task Force is planning a survey to solicit feedback on the TKN session at the Orlando meeting.
Peer Exchange Update
Bill Zaccagnino reviewed a first draft of new peer exchange guidelines prepared in response to the recommendations of the RAC Peer Exchange Special Task Force (attachment A). The draft guidelines provide more flexibility in the format and schedule of peer exchanges.
Barnie Jones has agreed to lead an effort to review the draft guidelines along with Rick Collins, members of the RAC Peer Exchange Special Task Force, and staff from FHWA and TRB. A status report will be provided at the next Officers’ meeting.
Action Items From 7-24-09 RAC Officers Meeting Notes
Sandra Larson is continuing to serve on a SCOH Emerging Technologies Working Group helping to update SCOH’s strategic Plan. She is planning to contact CUTC to explore opportunities to meet with RAC at January TRB meeting. Sandra also reported that both RAC and TRB have agreed to hold another joint RAC/TRB state reps meeting next year.
3 SCOR Strategic Plan
Sandra asked the RAC Officers and Task Force chairs to review the plan and provide comments by mid-August.
Summer 2010 RAC Meeting:
The next national RAC meeting will be held July 26 – 30, 2010 in Kansas City, Missouri. A steering committee has been established and will hold monthly conference calls, the first scheduled for August 19th.
Next Conf Call: September 10, 2009
4 Appendix A -- Revised FHWA Peer Exchange Guidelines - DRAFT
Table of Content
Title Page
1. Introduction...... 6 2. The Philosophy and Principal of the Peer Exchange...... 7 3. The Use of Peer Exchanges to Strategically Improve Research Programs...... 7 4. Guidance and Resources on Conducting Peer Exchanges...... 8 4.1 Core Guidance...... 8 4.2 Recommended Peer Exchange Cycle for State DOT Director of Research...... 9 4.3 Options for Peer Exchange Activities...... 9 a. Onsite Peer Exchange...... 9 b. Multi-State Peer Exchange...... 9 c. Virtual Peer Exchange...... 9 4.4 Resources for Planning and Peer Exchange Logistic Support...... 10 4.5 Other Peer Exchange References...... 10 5. Case Studies...... 11 6. Frequently Asked Questions...... 11 7. Appendix...... 17 7.1 FHWA Division Peer Exchange Check List...... 17
5 1. Introduction
The use of peer exchanges was established to provide State DOT Research, Development, and Technology programs with the opportunity to examine and evaluate their own programs through a collaborative team of peers, experts, and persons involved in the process, where the exchange of vision, ideas, and best practices could be fostered to benefit their program and the program of the participants. Principally, the intent is for the peer exchange to be used as a tool for State DOTs RD&T programs to be introspective about their management plans and work programs through the support of their community to build the most effective research programs that supports our Nation’s transportation system in being the very best transportation system in the world. The regulatory references in support of the peer exchange are as follows:
23CFR 420.203 Peer exchange means a periodic review of a State DOT’s RD&T program of or portion thereof, by representatives of other State DOT’s, for the purpose of exchange of information or best practices. The State DOT may also invite the participation of the FHWA, and other Federal, State, regional or local transportation agencies, the Transportation Research Board, academic institutions, foundations or private firms that support transportation research development or technology transfer activities.
23CFR 420.205(b) The State DOTs must provide information necessary for peer exchanges.
23CFR 420.209(a)(5) Procedures to determine the effectiveness of the State DOT’s management process in implementing the RD&T program, to determine the utilization of the State DOT’s RD&T outputs, and to facilitate peer exchanges of its RD&T Program on a periodic basis.
23CFR 420.209(a)(7) Participation in peer exchanges of its RD&T management process and of other State DOT’s programs on a periodic basis. To assist peer exchange teams in conducting an effective exchange, the State DOT must provide them the information and documentation required to be collected and maintained under this subpart. Travel and other cost associated with the State’s peer exchange may be identified as a line item in the States DOT’s work program will be eligible for 100 percent Federal funding. The peer exchange team must prepare a written report of the exchange.
This guide will cover (1) the philosophy and principal of the peer exchange, (2) the use of peer exchanges to strategically improve research programs, and (3) guidance and resources on conducting peer exchanges.
6 2. The Philosophy and Principal of the Peer Exchange
State DOT RD&T programs exist to support the greater function of how we can create the best transportation system. The use of peer exchanges was established to provide States with the opportunity to have exchanges that improve their programs.
Principally, the intent is for the peer exchange to be used as a tool for State DOTs RD&Ts to be introspective about their management plans and work programs through the support of their community to build the most effective research programs that support our Nation’s transportation system in being the very best transportation system in the world.
3. The Use of Peer Exchanges to Strategically Improve Research Programs
The use of peer exchange was established to provide State DOT Research, Development, and Technology programs with the opportunity to examine and evaluate their own programs through a collaborative team of peers, experts, and persons involved in the process, where the exchange of vision, ideas, and best practices could be fostered to benefit their program and the program of the participants.
Benefits and explanation of core guidance.
Benefits of the cyclical approach to improve program.
First peer exchange: a) full evaluation of the management plan and work program
Second peer exchange: a) full evaluation of the management plan and work program and/or b) specific focus topics in the management plan and work program
After Second peer exchange: a) full evaluation of the management plan and work program and/or b) specific focus topics in the management plan and work program and/or c) convene with agenda demonstrating efforts to explore emerging opportunities for program improvements
Benefits of peer exchange activities a. Onsite Peer Exchange Location: Onsite of Host State Time: 2 to 3 days Participants: Host State, other State research programs, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) staff, universities, or others
7 b. Multi-State Peer Exchange Location: Central Time: Discretionary Participants: Host States*, other State research programs, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) staff, universities, or others c. Virtual Peer Exchange Location: Virtual, Webinar, Video Conference Time: Discretionary, Single Scheduled Session, Multiple Scheduled Sessions Participants: Host States*, other State research programs, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) staff, universities, or others
4. Guidance and Resources on Conducting Peer Exchanges It is the State's responsibility to initiate its peer exchange. The peer exchange activity, composition of the peer exchange team, the breadth of the issues covered, the duration of the peer exchange, and other issues are at the States' discretion. 4.1 Core Guidance
1. Peer Exchanges should convene periodically with an agenda which demonstrates efforts to address (a) the State DOT RD&T program’s management plans and/or work program, whole or in part, and/or (b) value-added enhancements to the State DOT RD&T program.
2. The peer exchange should be a planned activity with information necessary provided by the host state.
3. Peer Exchange activities should entail a 2 to 3 day agenda within a five year span.
4. Peer Exchange Team should include a panel of four to five people and should include participants from other State research programs, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) staff, universities, or other relevant participants; at least one or two of the panel members should have participated in previous peer exchange panels.
5. The peer exchange team must prepare a written report of the exchange.
6. The host state should hold a close out meeting together with their FHWA Division Representative and their State DOT upper management on the peer exchange.
8 7. Before the next peer exchange the State Director of Research should prepare a follow up report or memorandum summarizing changes that were or were not made to the program based on the previous peer exchange, and submitted to FHWA and their State DOT upper management.
4.2 Recommended Peer Exchange Cycle for State DOT Director of Research
Determination of which peer exchange cycle is engaged should be at the discretion of the State DOT Director of Research based on the principal and philosophy of the peer exchange and the use of peer exchanges to strategically improve research programs.
First Peer Exchange: a) full evaluation of the management plan and work program
Second Peer Exchange: a) full evaluation of the management plan and work program and/or b) specific focus topics in the management plan and work program
After Second Peer Exchange: a) full evaluation of the management plan and work program and/or b) specific focus topics in the management plan and work program and/or c) convene with agenda demonstrating efforts to explore emerging opportunities for program improvements
4.3 Options for Peer Exchange Activities
FHWA Division SP&R Coordinators should be available to partner with and support the State DOT in determining the peer exchange activities and agenda. Peer exchange activities should fill at least a 2 to 3 day agenda within a five year span. The number of peer exchanges activities held should at the discretion of the state and based on the value added of holding a peer exchange to benefit the of the State DOT RD&T program. a. Onsite Peer Exchange Location: Onsite of Host State Time: 2 to 3 days Participants: Host State, other State research programs, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) staff, universities, or others b. Multi-State Peer Exchange Location: Central Time: Discretionary
9 Participants: Host States*, other State research programs, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) staff, universities, or others c. Virtual Peer Exchange Location: Virtual, Webinar, Video Conference Time: Discretionary, Single Scheduled Session, Multiple Scheduled Sessions Participants: Host States*, other State research programs, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) staff, universities, or others
*In event there are multiple states hosting the peer exchange a panel of four to five people are to attend outside of the host states. If the number of host states exceed the number of panel members an additional four to five panel members are to attend outside of the host states.
4.4 Resources for Planning and Peer Exchange Logistic Support
Cite benefit in using these resources
UTC Center/ Universities are excellent resources to support function related to the peer exchange activities and is encouraged as a support partner for the state.
State LTAP Centers are excellent resources to support function related to the peer exchange activities and is encouraged as a support partner for the state.
Meeting Contractors are another resource to support function related to the peer exchange activities.
FHWA Division Contact should be available in support of the peer exchange strategic and planning functions.
A Transportation Pooled Fund project may be established and administered by states to support the peer exchanges.
4.5 Other Peer Exchange References
Peer Exchange Reports, RAC Website http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?link=http://cms.transportation.org/? siteid=55%5bamp%5dpageid=1396
10 Summary: Collection of peer exchange reports by states
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project No. 20-38A Documenting Peer Exchange Administrative Experiences (July 1998) Summary: Examines the progress of the completed exchanges
NCHRP Project 20-7, Task 125 Peer Exchange: A Value-Added Program Management Tool Summary: This document summarized the States' experiences with peer exchanges and how they benefited from the program. The overall conclusion is that a peer exchange can be a valuable management tool.
Technology Today publication, Louisiana (2004) Peer Exchange Produces Results Summary: The article touts the success and value of the peer exchange program
5. Case Studies
Submission of case studies of peer exchanges: -How it benefited their program.
6. Frequently Asked Questions
***Review FAQ from SP&R website which may need to be updated.
1. What is the ‘periodic ‘time frame?
The time frame for ‘periodic’ should not exceed five years. Individual States should conduct
2. What if I can not attend a peer exchange because my state agency has travel restrictions?
The FHWA Division can write a letter in support of the peer exchange stating the state’s responsibility to attend peer exchange and citing 23CFR 420.209(a)(7) Participation in peer exchanges of its RD&T management process and of other State DOT’s programs on a periodic basis.
Peer Exchange-Frequently Asked Questions What is the peer exchange program? Where can I get information on the peer exchange program? In particular, where can I get information on how to conduct a peer exchange?
11 What is the objective of the peer exchange program? How often are peer exchanges conducted? Who should be on the peer exchange panel? Does the peer exchange have to be an overview of the State's whole research program? Can peer exchanges be funded with State planning and research (SP&R) funds? Does participation in a meeting such as the AASHTO RAC's National Meeting fulfill the peer exchange requirement? Why are multi-State peer exchanges not acceptable? Can a State representative travel to a series of other States to conduct a peer exchange? Does the peer exchange panel have to report its findings? What does the content meeting with the host State senior management involve? Does FHWA hold the States responsible for the specific action items included in the report? Must panel members be selected from a list of “approved” panel members? Who can help me identify panel members? Have all States conducted peer exchanges? Additional questions?
What is the peer exchange program? The general intent of the Federal regulation for the peer exchange program is to enhance the quality and performance of the State's research, development and technology (RD&T) management through peer involvement. The peer exchange process grew out of the original concept of peer review as conducted by organizations such as the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Council of Engineering Companies (http://www.acec.org/)], and the Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers. In those peer exchanges, organizations seek independent assessment of their firms and a comparison with industry norms. Furthermore, the review teams deal primarily with the chief executive officer of the organization to review standard and predetermined aspects of the organization's operations, (e.g., financial management, project management, human resource management), conduct confidential interviews with employees, and present findings at a closeout meeting with the chief executive at the conclusion of the exchange. The final step is a staff briefing of the exchange report. Many of the elements from this peer exchange methodology were retained in the development of a customized peer exchange process.
Where can I get information on the peer exchange program? A good source of information about the peer exchange program is on the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Web site under the State Planning and Research (SP&R) Guide section: http://www.tfhrc.gov/sprguide/pe.htm. The peer exchange section provides links to regulatory requirements, guidelines on conducting a peer exchange, FHWA memos, links to two reports on peer exchanges issued by the National
12 Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) (Documenting Peer Exchange Administrative Experiences, July 1998 and Peer Exchange: A Value-Added Program Management Tool, March 2001), and other information.
In particular, where can I get information on how to conduct a peer exchange? The information on the FHWA's Web site under the SP&R Guide section, http://www.tfhrc.gov/sprguide/pe.htm, will help you plan and conduct a peer exchange. In particular, Documenting Peer Exchange Administrative Experiences, July 1998, contains step-by-step instructions on how to conduct a peer exchange.
What is the objective of the peer exchange program? The objective of the peer exchange program is to give State departments of transportation (DOTs) means to improve the quality and effectiveness of their research management processes. A peer exchange provides an opportunity for a State to examine its research program, particularly relative to its management plan. It is a practical and effective tool to foster excellence in research, development, and technology (RD&T) program management. Peer exchanges provide an opportunity for panelists to share best practices and management innovations with each other.
The basic approach is to invite an outside panel of managers to meet with the host agency to discuss and review its RD&T management process. Information on the host agency's policies and procedures, including its management plan and work program, are shared with panel members in advance of the peer exchange. During the peer exchange, panel members may meet with managers, staff, stakeholders, and customers to gain further insight into the host State's program. The information gathered from the exchange is presented to agency management.
How often are peer exchanges conducted? Under 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 420.209 (a)(7), a State is required to conduct peer exchanges on a periodic basis. FHWA has administratively determined this to be every 3 years. FHWA's Office of RD&T has issued two memos (See the Robert Betsold September 20, 1996, memo and the Dennis Judycki July 13, 2000, memo) offering guidance on the peer exchange program, which state that "on a periodic basis means" at least once every 3 years.
Who should be on the peer exchange panel? Peer exchange panels should include representatives of other States' research programs, universities, and customers and stakeholders of the research program. States are also encouraged to include a representative from the FHWA division office and/or FHWA's Headquarters. Panel members may be chosen for their technical expertise, experience in managing a research program, or knowledge of customer needs.
13 Does the peer exchange have to be an overview of the State's whole research program? No. While an overview peer exchange is very valuable for a State to conduct, some of the periodic peer exchanges may be focused on areas of the State's research program. For example, some States have focused on performance measurement or technology transfer. If a State chooses to conduct a peer exchange on a focused area, it should still address the general intent of the peer exchange program to enhance quality and performance of the State's RD&T management through peer involvement.
Can peer exchanges be funded with State planning and research (SP&R) funds? Yes. Travel and other costs associated with the State DOT's peer exchange may be identified as a line item in the State DOT's planning and research work program and is eligible for 100 percent SP&R funding.
Does participation in a meeting such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Research Advisory Committee's (RAC) National Meeting fulfill the peer exchange requirement? No. Participation in a meeting such as national meetings of the AASHTO RAC is certainly a worthwhile endeavor and typically involves considerable interaction with peers, but such meetings lack crucial elements of a formal peer exchange.
A peer exchange is designed to focus on one State's research program, using a knowledgeable panel to gather information on the host State's program and make constructive recommendations. A crucial part of a peer exchange is the panel's opportunity to present findings and recommendations to the host State's senior management and key decisionmakers. One of the benefits of peer exchanges has been the opportunity to make senior managers more aware of how research supports their overall program and helps them address customer needs.
Why are multi-State peer exchanges not acceptable? Doing a multi-State peer exchange would dilute the effectiveness and intent of the peer exchange by removing the focus from the host State. A valuable part of the peer exchange is giving the exchange panel access to not only the research leaders in the host State, but to other research staff, other interested staff, customers, and stakeholders. In addition to losing that access, doing a multi-State peer exchange would not give the panel an opportunity to present findings and recommendations to a host State's senior management and key decisionmakers. One of the benefits of peer exchanges has been the opportunity to make senior management more aware of how research supports their overall program and helps them address customer needs.
Can a State representative travel to a series of other States to conduct a peer exchange? No. This would not fulfill the Federal regulatory requirement for conducting peer exchanges. Taking the peer exchange out of a host State would dilute the effectiveness
14 and intent of the peer exchange by removing the focus from the host State. A valuable part of the peer exchange is giving the exchange panel access to not only the research leaders in the host State, but to other research staff, other interested staff, customers and stakeholders and, very importantly, to senior management of the host DOT. A crucial part of a peer exchange is the panel's opportunity to present findings and recommendations to the host State's senior management and key decision makers.
Does the peer exchange panel have to report its findings? Yes. According to 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 420.209 (a)(7), the peer exchange panel must prepare a written report of the exchange. If at all possible, the report should be written before the closeout meeting with the senior management of the host State. At a minimum, the report should be prepared before the panel members leave.
The report should include a brief introduction that identifies all of the participants on the panel and describes the purpose and intent of the activity. The body of the report should briefly discuss those aspects of the research program that the panel explored.
The conclusion section of the report should reflect the highlights of the open discussions and should be written as a panel, using a panel consensus approach. Moreover, it should include an endorsement by all of the members of the panel. A copy of the report should be forwarded by the host State to the FHWA Division Administrator upon completion of the peer exchange.
What does the closeout meeting with the host State senior management involve? The closeout meeting can be of great benefit if conducted with senior management of the host State. It should highlight positive aspects of the host State research program and outline those aspects that the visitors intend to incorporate into their own programs. Of course, any suggestions agreed to by the panel, should also be highlighted to the host State senior management, with the understanding that senior management support is necessary to make significant changes.
Does FHWA hold the States responsible for the specific action items included in the report? No. Peer exchanges are opportunities for States to identify successes as well as areas for improvement in their research programs. The host States and their peer exchange panels identify action items as ways the host States may improve their programs. It is a host State’s responsibility to follow up on action items with the goal of gaining the greatest benefit from the peer exchange. A host State may choose to give feedback on its progress on action items to the panel and FHWA, but it is not required.
Must panel members be selected from a list of “approved” panel members?
15 No. During the initial stages of the program, it was a requirement that some panel members be selected from the FHWA “approved” list of those who had received formal training on the peer exchange process. Since then, many people have gained experience by participating in peer exchanges, so FHWA no longer requires formally trained members on the panel.
Who can help me identify panel members? The peer exchange panel of four to five people should include participants from other State research programs. Several additional organizations are likely sources of panel members: FHWA, and other Federal, State, regional or local transportation agencies; the Transportation Research Board (TRB); academic institutions; foundations; or private firms that support transportation research, development, or technology transfer activities. Panel members must be external—that is, not employed by the host State DOT. At least one or two panel members should have participated in previous peer exchange panels.
There are a number of ways to identify potential panel members. Nominations may be solicited from State DOT staff, partners, and stakeholders. The host State may solicit names of potential panel members from scientific or professional societies, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), TRB, or AASHTO Committees. AASHTO’s Research Advisory Committee (RAC) maintains a list of its members on its Web site, http://research.transportation.org, and the RAC national or regional listservs can be used to solicit volunteers from other States.
Have all States conducted peer exchanges? Yes. Most States have hosted two peer exchanges and some have completed their third exchange. The regulation, 23 CFR, Part 420(a)(7), calls for States to participate “. . .in peer exchanges of its RD&T management process and of other State DOTs’ programs on a periodic basis.” FHWA's Office of RD&T issued two memos (see the Robert Betsold September 20, 1996, memo and the Dennis Judycki July 13, 2000, memo) offering guidance on the peer exchange program that defines “periodic basis” to mean at least once every 3 years.
Additional questions? For more information or if you have additional questions, contact William Zaccagnino at 202-493-3183 or [email protected].
16 7. Appendix
7.1 FHWA Division Peer Exchange Check List
State initiate peer exchange
Peer Exchanges convene with an agenda which demonstrates efforts to address (a) the State DOT RD&T program’s management plans and/or work program, whole or in part, and/or (b) value-added enhancements to the State DOT RD&T program.
Peer exchange planned activity with information necessary provided by the host state.
Peer Exchange activities entailed a 2 to 3 day agenda within a five year span.
Peer exchange team included at least a panel of four to five people and included participants from other State research programs, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) staff, universities, or other relevant participants; at least one or two of the panel members should have participated in previous peer exchange panels.
Peer exchange team prepared a written report of the exchange.
Host state held close out meeting together with their FHWA Division Representative and their State DOT upper management on the peer exchange.
Before the next peer exchange the State Director of Research submitted follow up report or memorandum summarizing changes that were or were not made to the program based on the previous peer exchange which was also submitted to FHWA and their State DOT upper management.
17 Appendix B – July 24 Meeting notes
Meeting Notes
RAC Officers Meeting
July 24, 2009 Orlando, Florida 8:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
In attendance: Sandra Larson (chair), Steve Pepin, Dale Peabody, Keith Platte, Bill Zaccagnino, Chris Hedges, Chris Jenks, Ron Curb, Tommy Nantung, Richard Long, Darryll Dockstader, Moy Biswas, Monique Evans, Mike Trentacoste, Wes Lum, Rick Collins, Clint Adler, Mara Campbell, Debra Elston, Crawford Jencks, Tim Klein, Leni Oman, Patti Brannon.
Decisions and action items are underscored.
Future joint RAC/TRB state reps meetings
Mark Norman is reviewing whether financial support can be provided on a continuing basis for annual TRB state reps meetings if held in conjunction with the annual RAC meeting. There were some comments that the TRB state reps portion of the meeting did not get enough time on the agenda. Sandra Larson suggested that next time more effort be taken to blend both elements of the program.
A motion (Clint Adler / Jeff Brown) to support a joint meeting next year was approved.
Research needs in highway bill authorization
Sandra Larson suggested holding a conference call with Susan Martinovich to discuss RAC concerns about authorization. Sandra plans to propose the formation of a RAC/SCOR task force to monitor research issues and funding levels until a bill is passed. Chris Jenks agreed to arrange a conference call before the next RAC Officers's conference call on August 13 th. Rick Collins, Janet Oakley (AASHTO staff), Tim McDowell (chair of the Research Funding Task Force), and Chris Jenks will also be invited to participate in the call.
Mike Trentacoste noted that little is happening at the moment related to a reauthorization bill, but the efforts to approve a 12-18 month extension are moving quickly. There may be a need to react quickly to the provisions of that extension, and the RAC/SCOR task force may be able to play a role in that regard.
18 Wes Lum suggested that the other DOT modal administrations be asked to provide information on their authorization efforts and interest areas. Wes asked Michael Trentacoste and Tim Klein to make contact with their colleagues in other administrations and help circulate relevant information.
Clint Adler noted that ASCE is supporting research in the new bill, and offered to find a contact in that organization to assist the task force.
RAC members may wish to forward selective information they receive about research funding needs to their legislative staff.
Rick Collins stressed the need for RAC and SCOR to serve as a strong national voice for transportation research. Clint suggested focusing the message on the SCOR vision and mission.
Chris Jenks suggested developing a one-page list of talking points about the importance of SP&R program to the states. Wes suggested including a discussion of data needs that was included in an expanded SP&R program in the last reauthorization.
Sandra briefly described that strategic planning effort underway by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways in which she is involved. The importance of research has been recognized by SCOH and will be a component of their strategic plan.
Value of Research pamphlet.
Mara Campbell will send an electronic copy of the pamphlet to Chris Hedges by email for distribution to the RAC Officers for review. Comments will be due by August 7.
2009 Meeting wrap-up.
Richard Long led a general discussion of the comment forms received to date. Some of the discussion items and suggestions were as follows:
RAC members should strongly consider inviting a new RAC member when planning their next peer exchange.
Break the mentoring session into a number of smaller groups.
Hold a RAC 101 at the beginning of the meeting, followed by another more informal meeting near the end.
Each regional chair should assign a mentor to new members in their region. The mentor should sit with their new member during the meeting and introduce them to other RAC members.
19 Make use of mentoring material being developed by the Education and Training task force.
Invite SHRP 2 coordinators to meet in conjunction with the 2010 RAC meeting.
Consider evaluation forms that cover ½ day of the agenda, not for each session.
Reports on high value research projects were very popular.
Make sure speakers provide handouts.
All PowerPoint presentations should be provided to Darryll within two weeks. These will be forwarded to Chris Hedges for distribution.
Participants should be given information on how to follow up with presenters to get further information.
Make sure PowerPoint slides are legible.
Attendees were generally comfortable with the length of the schedule.
Guidance on dress codes should be provided.
Provide a less formal seating arrangement for the town hall session.
Evaluate the desired level of CUTC participation and plan accordingly. Contact CUTC early if we want them to participate next year.
Include time for informal networking at the evening dinner event.
Have a room available for impromptu meetings.
Continue to include speaker bios in the meeting program.
Prepare and distribute a list of attendees.
Consider a conference theme; e.g. long range research (with connection to 20-83 program); getting research completed in a more timely fashion.
Try to set meeting parameters (e.g. start and end days, possible sessions and meetings, general structure) as early as possible.
There is a need for a clear understanding of the respective roles of the regional organizing team and the RAC leadership team, as well as TRB Division A
20 leadership if another joint meeting takes place. The RAC leadership had to take a strong role this year to coordinate the schedule and program changes and additions needed to address financial constraints and joint events. It is likely that next year's event will face the same constraints and the RAC leadership group will need to work closely with the Region 3 organizers.
Leni noted that several other TRB committees, including Library and Information Services in Transportation, Conduct of Research, and Technology Transfer have expressed interest in meeting jointly with RAC. Time and scheduling constraints might make this difficult.
There may be an opportunity for a brief joint RAC/CUTC meeting on Sunday afternoon during the TRB annual meeting.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:30 a.m. The next RAC Officers conference call will take place on Thursday, August 13th at 1:30 p.m. Eastern time.
21 Appendix C -
8-13-2009
SCOR/RAC Research Authorization Working Group that will be used by AASHTO to solicit comments as needed during the authorization legislative process:
Susan Martinovich Sandra Larson Rick Collins Monique Evans Wes Lum RAC Funding Task Force Chair (TBD) Chris Jenks Ann Brach
22 Appendix D
Meeting Notes RAC Leadership Teleconference July 9, 2009, 1:30 – 3:30 Eastern Time
1:30pm Role Call Participants: Sandra Larson (Chair), Clint Adler, Moy Biswas, Patty Brannon, Randy Battey, Mara Campbell, Ron Curb, Darryll Dockstader, Crawford Jencks, Chris Jenks, Tim Klein, Wes Lum, Jim McDonnell, Tommy Nantung, Leni Oman, Dale Peabody, Steve Pepin, Bill Zaccagnino
Adjustments to the Agenda – None.
Minutes of previous conference, provided by Sandra Larson A motion to accept the minutes was approved.
Action and decision items are underscored.
Old Business AASHTO Report: Jim McDonnell provided a follow-up to issues Sandra Larson had raised with Ken Kobetsky. They were as follows: ASCE is sponsoring a congressional fellow again this year, but the individual will not be working on transportation legislation. The fellow as been assigned to the office of Senator Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) and will be working on climate change legislation. Jim provided a list of Technical Service Programs (that Sandra Larson has subsequently distributed). The programs are voluntary, pooled fund efforts. The average participation is 30-35 states. If a state contributed to all existing programs, it would amount to $120,000; the average participation, however, is approximately $60,000. Moy Biswas mentioned that some of the programs are eligible for 100% SPR funding—no state match. Only one program is listed as such now; Jim will be updating the table. AASHTOWare products/projects were not included in the Technical Service Programs’ list and will be provided by Jim. There were several concerns expressed about the “AASHTO pooled fund” efforts. The state research managers have a difficult time knowing their states’ level of participation (although Jim indicated that an email was sent for the FY 2010 programs); times are economically difficult--being able to coordinate all efforts would be helpful; and a periodic reevaluation of the programs should be done. Jenet Adem, AASHTO Director of Finance and Administration, would be the person at AASHTO for additional information. Jim also provided a one page list of AASHTO concerns with Congressman Oberstar’s proposal for surface transportation legislation. Two issues specifically mentioned during the conference call were 1) if core programs are changed, this
23 would have an effect on the base for calculating SPR funds and 2) the authority provided to federally created MPOs is “disturbing.” Jim also mentioned a longer 17-page document with specific AASHTO recommendations for changes to the Oberstar proposal. Sandra asked for this document as well; however, Jim thought it would not be useful since it is suggesting changes to the language of the proposal; it does not provide the context. Another version is being developed that will.
TRB Report: Chris Jenks provided highlighted updates of TRB’s cooperative research programs. The AASHTO Board of Directors’ ballot on the FY 2010 NCHRP program of projects was underway--the due date being July 10. Several states had not responded yet. FHWA continues to collect the FY 2009 state contributions of funds. About 76% has been collected thus far. Fourteen states have not paid yet—10 have made partial payment and 4 none. The FY 2011 NCHRP solicitation for candidate problem statements had been sent out to AASHTO committees; state DOTs, and the FHWA. The deadline, as usual, is September 15, 2009. The SCOR task force looking at the future of NCHRP Project 20-83, Long-Range Strategic ….., will be posting an open solicitation for topics under Project 20-83. These will also be due on September 15. SCOR may select topics from this solicitation at its November meeting using the FY 2010 $1M that remains unassigned and reserve consideration of others for its annual March meeting dependent on funding of the overall project. The freight (NCFRP) and hazmat (HMCRP) programs also have a joint solicitation out for problem statements, due July 31, 2009. The airport (ACRP) program’s oversight committee will be meeting on July 19- 20 to select next year’s program of projects. Two hundred 200 candidates were submitted. ACRP also expects to receive $15M for FY 2009, up from $10M. The transit (TCRP) program had a June 15, 2009 deadline for problem statements. The oversight committee will be meeting in early November to select its annual slate of projects. Chris also made mention that papers for the January 2010 TRB annual meeting are due August 1, 2009.
Randy Battey asked if all the FY 2010 panels had been formed yet for NCHRP. Crawford Jencks responded that there were a few left to be done.
RITA Report: Tim Klein gave the RITA report as follows. As is most of the US DOT, RITA is working on the Administration’s 18-month proposal to extend surface transportation legislation (SAFETEA-LU). RITA is also helping NHTSA on a report to Congress on reducing highway fatalities.
24 Tim highlighted 3 reports on the RITA website: one on America’s Container Ports, another on motorcycle safety and registration trends, and an interim report on the first phase of the Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems (IVBSS) initiative. The annual CUTC meeting took place at the University of Massachusetts- Amherst on June 30 to July 2, 2009. Wes Lum would speak to this later.
FHWA Report: Bill Zaccagnino updated the participants on recent FHWA activity. FHWA has a new deputy administrator, Greg Nadeau, from the Maine DOT. He is also the acting FHWA administrator until Victor Mendez is officially confirmed. FHWA is recruiting for a SHRP2 implementation position. FHWA is also discussing future roles for implementation with AASHTO. Bill indicated that there will be 15 FHWA people at the upcoming RAC annual meeting and that MikeTrentacoste and Deb Elston will be splitting the leadership representation.
New Business
2009 Summer Meeting in Orlando, FL Randy Battey and Darryll Dockstader reported that everything is ready for the meeting. Ninety-nine people have registered thus far. For the roundtable discussions, Randy will have a compilation of the completed templates, but if a submitter has additional write-up related material, to bring it along.
Task Force Updates SCOR Strategic Plan—Work is continuing on the update of the SCOR strategic plan. Sandra will provide a current updated version to RAC members prior to the annual meeting noting that it should be an agenda item for all RAC task forces. The SCOR Task Force will appreciate feedback.
RAC Task Forces—Sandra Larson referred to the web link in the agenda. http://www.transportation.org/sites/research/docs/Task%20Force%20Tracking%20May%202009.doc
Peer Exchange Update Randy Battey told the group that Maria Chau in FHWA’s NY Division Office was preparing a report. It was also noted that Maria has been reassigned to the WA Division Office. Bill Zaccagnino said he is helping her and will have an update for the RAC annual meeting.
Randy also took this time to express his appreciation and thanks over the last 10 years with RAC. This would be his last RAC conference call and he’ll miss us all.
CUTC Annual Meeting
25 Wes Lum reviewed his previously provided report of his attendance at the CUTC annual meeting in Amherst, MA on June 30 to July 2. Crawford Jencks, who also attended along with Steve Pepin and Gary Frederick, thought Wes’ report was well done and more than adequately covered the events; he had nothing to add.
2:50pm Adjourn
The next conference call will be August 13, 2009.
26 Appendix E:
AASHTO Technical Service Overview (6-09) JTM Edit.xls
Appendix F:
AASHTOWare Current Development Projects.xls
Appendix G:
SPR Language from 23 USC 505.doc
27