September 24, 2025

Sean McMaster
Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. McMaster:

Please accept my congratulations on your appointment and confirmation as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which I offer on behalf of the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC). The RTCC is a committee of 10 experts who represent state departments of transportation (DOTs), regional planning organizations, and other highway owners, highway users, and experts in key highway research, development, and technology (RD&T) topics (see Attachment A for roster). TRB established the RTCC in 1992 at the request of FHWA to review and advise on the agency’s RD&T programs and projects. The RTCC’s charge is to monitor and review FHWA’s RD&T activities and advise the agency on (a) the development of its research agenda and its coordination with states, universities, and other partners; (b) strategies for accelerating the deployment and adoption of innovation; and (c) areas in which additional research may be needed. The RTCC’s aim is to provide strategic advice at the research policy level (see Attachment B for the Statement of Task).

Since its creation in 1992, the RTCC’s advice has ranged widely from identifying priority research topics, such as materials and designs for 100-year pavements, to offering research policy guidance on how FHWA can foster public- and private-sector innovation in highway design, materials, construction, safety, and operations. Over this period of more than 30 years, reports from the RTCC have consistently highlighted FHWA’s essential role in several key areas of the national highway RD&T enterprise, including supporting fundamental, long-term research; facilitating technology transfer; and coordinating the nation’s highway research.

Whereas most of the RTCC’s advice has been conveyed through brief letter-style reports¹ like this one, the committee has periodically issued full-length reports that assess federal, state, university, and private highway research and make recommendations to strengthen the federal investment. The most recent full-length report, The Vital Federal Role in Meeting the Highway Innovation Imperative, was issued in 2019.² In addition to suggesting specific future areas of emphasis, the report served as a primer to congressional staff about federal, state, and university RD&T programs that rely on federal aid.

The RTCC last met on June 17–18, 2025, at FHWA’s Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC). During the 2-day meeting, TFHRC staff led tours of the facility’s research

__________________

500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001

laboratories and described the work of the Office of Infrastructure R&D and the Office of Safety and Operations R&D. The tour included visits to the Pavement Testing Facility, Federal Outdoor Impact Laboratory, Human Factors Laboratory, Saxton Transportation Operations Laboratory, Structures Laboratory, Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Laboratory, and J. Sterling Jones Hydraulics Laboratory. While the visits did not cover all 14 TFHRC laboratories and testing facilities,³ they helped committee members gain a more complete understanding of FHWA’s RD&T portfolio and capabilities. It also provided the committee with a firsthand observation of the high quality and dedication of TFHRC’s team of researchers and support personnel. On behalf of my fellow RTCC members, I would like to thank the leadership and program staff of the Office of RD&T for delivering an informative and engaging set of briefings that fostered 2 days of productive discussions to inform the development of this letter report.

While this letter report follows the June meeting, its development was also informed by RTCC meetings held during 2023 and 2024. Those meetings included updates and discussions on a range of topics, including TFHRC’s work on road safety, advanced digital construction management, artificial intelligence (AI), and connected and automated systems, as well as briefings on FHWA’s Annual Modal Research Plan,⁴ TFHRC’s Long-Range Plan,⁵ and highway RD&T funding trends. During all of these meetings, RTCC members have been particularly pleased by the collegial and supportive nature of the interactions with the FHWA staff responsible for managing RD&T at TFHRC and in the other FHWA offices with RD&T activities.

The committee developed the content of this letter report through deliberations and subsequent correspondence. The report was then subject to peer review (see Attachment C). For context, the letter report begins with a brief overview of the nation’s highway RD&T enterprise, which FHWA supports by conducting and sponsoring research and by promoting technology transfer to state and local transportation agencies and private industry. More details are then provided on the FHWA RD&T program’s goals, structure, activities, and budget levels before turning to a review of how TFHRC uses its specialized capabilities, staff expertise, and partnerships to support FHWA’s mission and the interests of highway agency customers. The letter report closes with conclusions about THFRC’s priorities, capabilities, and constraints, each followed by the RTCC’s advice on opportunities for further strengthening FHWA’s important role and contributions to the nation’s highway RD&T enterprise.

OVERVIEW OF THE HIGHWAY RD&T ENTERPRISE

Because state and local governments own and operate most of the nation’s highway infrastructure, they are the primary customers for highway research and innovations while also partnering with FHWA, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), universities, and the private sector in sponsoring and conducting highway research. Consequently, the highway RD&T enterprise has many contributors. In addition to FHWA, key contributors include the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS JPO), which is administered jointly

__________________

by FHWA and USDOT’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, University Transportation Centers (UTCs), state planning and research (SP&R) programs, and the state-sponsored and -programmed National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is administered by TRB.

Each of these major partners plays a different role in RD&T, as follows:

• ITS-JPO’s research, in coordination with FHWA, focuses on areas within intelligent transportation that enhance efficiency, safety, and convenience, including AI, connected systems, automation, and digital infrastructure.
• Federal-aid SP&R funds are utilized by state DOTs to conduct highway research, develop new technologies, and implement new technologies into practice. SP&R funds and management plans are administered by states and approved by FHWA.
• UTCs, which are housed at colleges and universities across the country, conduct innovative and exploratory transportation research sponsored by USDOT. While UTCs are multi-modal and program funding is modest compared to FHWA and state RD&T programs, a considerable share of research is focused on highway research and augments highway RD&T conducted by other university researchers and university-affiliated research institutions.
• NCHRP conducts highway research funded by participating member states of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and with technical support from FHWA. NCHRP programs assist states in effective planning, design, construction, operations, and maintenance of their surface transportation system.⁶

In what is a multi-layered and largely decentralized process, each partner has substantial latitude to establish its own research priorities and agendas. This decentralization is desirable in the sense that research can be nimble, practical, and responsive to the needs and interests of the highway agency customer.⁷ At the same time, however, it can present challenges for effective communication and collaboration among partners and possibly lead to some critical needs and interests being neglected. Under these circumstances, FHWA is positioned to play a key role in the strategic coordination and alignment of the nation’s RD&T activities and to identify and address issues of national significance that other research partners do not address due to factors such as complexity, risk, and cost.

Indeed, as discussed next, FHWA has a history of research coordination and collaboration. The RTCC recognizes this history and offers advice on ways to maintain and strengthen FHWA’s strategic role in filling critical research gaps, addressing emerging issues, and helping to shape the direction of RD&T to promote national interests.

__________________

OVERVIEW OF THE FHWA RD&T PROGRAM

The principles of FHWA’s RD&T program are set forth in 23 U.S.C. § 502. FHWA is charged by Congress with conducting highway research that considers the entire innovation lifecycle of RD&T—from inception to delivery. The term “innovation lifecycle” is defined as the process of innovating through the identification of a need; establishment of the scope of research to address that need; carrying out research, development, deployment, and testing of the resulting technology or innovation; and conducting evaluations of the costs and benefits of the resulting technology or innovation. Statutory direction therefore emphasizes the importance of consulting principal customers of the RD&T, to include state DOTS, cities, counties, and metropolitan planning organizations. It also emphasizes evaluation of the performance of RD&T outcomes to ensure they are meeting the customers’ needs and interests.

The goals of the RD&T program are also set forth in 23 U.S.C. § 503 and listed in Table 1. FHWA’s most recent Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Annual Model Research Plan (AMRP)⁸ explains how the Office of RD&T strives to meet these statutory goals and reports the budget allocated to each (see Table 1). The AMRP also explains how FHWA’s RD&T program follows the principles set forth by Congress to conduct research across the innovation lifecycle, consult frequently with public- and private-sector research partners and customers, sponsor fundamental long-term research to further promising future innovations, and routinely evaluate program and project results. It is also noteworthy that the AMRP recognizes the RD&T program’s role in providing critical technical expertise to the highway community and in providing investigative and forensic support to other federal agencies for accident investigations and national security and defense matters.

The Office of RD&T is structured to align with the goals established by Congress. It consists of the following three divisions responsible for RD&T activities:

• Office of Infrastructure R&D, which oversees programs and projects focused on materials, long-term performance, construction, and bridges.
• Office of Safety and Operations R&D, which develops and implements innovations to reduce crashes, fatalities, and injuries and improve highway traffic operations.
• Research and Innovation Management Team, which identifies and evaluates novel, exploratory, and transformative innovations and methods in surface transportation research.

The Office of Infrastructure R&D manages TFHRC laboratories, data centers, and programs on materials engineering for concrete and asphalt pavements, long-term pavement and bridge performance, forensic investigations, lifecycle analysis of infrastructure assets, and bridge engineering. The Office of Safety and Operations R&D manages TFHRC laboratories, data centers, and programs for safety and data analysis of highway improvements and safety countermeasures, roadway and roadside design, connected and automated vehicles (CAVs), human factors, transportation technologies for safety and efficiency, and transportation

__________________

operations. The Research and Innovation Management Team administers TFHRC’s research evaluation, technology transfer, and exploratory research programs.

TABLE 1 FY2024 FHWA RD&T Program Budget by Goals Set Forth in 23 U.S.C. § 503

NOTE: In cases where the RD&T serves multiple goals (e.g., where improvements in highway operations and the delivery of new technologies and innovations can confer safety benefits), the goal-specific budget allocations can provide imperfect representations of the program’s attentiveness to each goal.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation Annual Modal Research Plans: FY 2024 Program Outlook FY 2025, Federal Highway Administration. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-08/AMRP%20FY2024-2025%20FHWA.pdf.

Table 2 provides examples of projects in each of the three divisions. It merits noting that TFHRC has an Office of Research Services that oversees the strategic direction and coordination of the RD&T agenda and portfolio with FHWA program and division offices and the Office of Federal Lands Highway.

Meeting Current Needs and Looking to the Future

While it is not possible in this short letter report to elaborate on these examples of TFHRC RD&T, the list in Table 2 exemplifies how FHWA strives to be both responsive to the immediate needs of its highway agency customers while also addressing emerging issues and undertaking fundamental, exploratory, and high-risk, high-payoff research. For instance, the pavements, chemistry, and aggregates labs and testing facilities develop protocols and testing devices for state DOT and other highway agencies to quickly and accurately assess if supplied materials are the required quality and grade specified for highway construction. The same facilities are used to conduct fundamental research to understand material deterioration and failure mechanisms and properties that yield superior performance to enable improvements to the durability, longevity, quality, and cost-effectiveness of highway materials and assets. Similarly, the safety and operations labs serve the current needs and interests of highway agencies, such as by providing technical support for the maintenance and development of tools for state DOTs to evaluate highway geometric designs and conduct data-driven safety analyses. The labs also have state-of-the-art tools to conduct behavioral research on drivers, pedestrians, and other road users to identify solutions to potential safety concerns in future as well as existing roadway scenarios.

TABLE 2 Examples of RD&T Areas by TFHRC Division

SOURCE: Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center, Laboratories Overview. https://highways.dot.gov/turner-fairbank-highway-research-center/laboratory-overview.

Digital Infrastructure and Data Systems

TFHRC has been investing increasingly in its digital infrastructure and data-driven research facilities to accelerate the adoption and deployment of digital tools and technologies for a range of benefits to highway agencies and users. For instance, the Office of Safety and Operations R&D developed the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model, which consists of a suite of software analysis tools for evaluating safety and operational effects of geometric design decisions on highways. The office’s Saxton Transportation Operations has been developing software and simulation platforms, such as the Vehicle-to-Everything hub, to facilitate vehicle and infrastructure communication and enable innovations such as advanced driver assistance systems for improved safety and traffic management. In addition to managing this and other work on intelligent transportation systems and CAVs, researchers are developing systems to ensure the safety, security, and integrity of data within connected transportation networks.

Digital platforms are also being explored to facilitate the development, testing, and deployment of new technologies for the design, construction, and maintenance of highway infrastructure. Since 2011, the Office of Infrastructure R&D has been advancing the concepts of

building information modeling and digital delivery, including three-dimensional modeling, digital twins, and intelligent and automated construction to address the interests of highway agencies in expediting project delivery and enabling higher quality asset management, design, and construction. For instance, digital twins of real-world bridges that represent their actual problems and conditions are being used to create a virtual NDE Laboratory to test new diagnostic tools and technologies in a simulated environment. The Exploratory Advanced Research program, which is administered by the Research and Innovation Management Team, is investigating digital infrastructure solutions, such as the potential for generative AI synthetic data and simulations to improve the distribution of training and testing of new digital infrastructure technologies

Researchers in the Office of Safety and Operations R&D are also developing AI and machine learning applications to analyze large amounts of transportation data and help create predictive traffic models, improve traffic flow, and aid human decision-making in traffic management centers. Such tools are also being explored by the Office of Infrastructure R&D’s Long-Term Infrastructure Performance Team to develop data-driven insights to better understand highway infrastructure performance over time.

DISCUSSION

Program Overview and Charge

The RTCC has met five times since issuing its last letter report in September 2022.⁹ During these meetings, committee members have been briefed and engaged in discussions about a range of topics of interest to the committee and FHWA’s RD&T leadership. Topics have included research conducted by the infrastructure, operations, and safety laboratories, as well as projects and programs managed by the Research and Innovation Management Team and the Office of Research Services. Infrastructure topics, for example, have included updates of TFHRC’s work on pavement testing, hydraulics, and the application of AI for assessing pavement conditions and structural inspections. Safety and operations topics have included updates on TFHRC’s work on advanced driver assistance systems, speed management, roadway lighting, connected vehicles and intersection safety, and the application of AI to protect vulnerable road users. While the detailed briefings could cover only a selection of the individual projects and programs at TFHRC, they were also accompanied by other briefings on FHWA’s freight research, reviews of international highway technologies, and RD&T conducted by ITS JPO.

RTCC members were also updated regularly on the status of the AMRP and TFHRC’s project and program evaluations (conducted under TRB’s Cooperative Research Program [CRP]). The committee was briefed on TFHRC’s Long-Range Plan, which emphasizes the regular evaluation of its research methodologies and programs through peer reviews and impact evaluations. Furthermore, it calls for TFHRC to be a hub for collaborative research by cultivating an environment that encourages interdisciplinary and cross-modal collaboration among researchers and that proactively incorporates cutting-edge technologies into research methodologies. The plan calls for TFHRC to focus on staying ahead of technological

__________________

advancements and creating programs that support exploratory research and high-risk, high-reward research in emerging areas with the potential for transformational impacts.

TFHRC Expertise and Capabilities

During the committee’s most recent tour of TFHRC’s laboratories, project team members described the work in progress and the committee witnessed how the specialized labs and staff expertise have also been used for valuable non-research purposes, such as for forensics analyses of bridge collapses for the National Transportation Safety Board, testing of perimeter security devices to prevent the intrusion of speeding vehicles into government facilities, and scour testing to support the Maryland Highway Administration’s plan to replace the Francis Scott Key Bridge. During conversations with TFHRC’s scientists and engineers, the committee also learned how the center’s staff experts have long augmented FHWA’s Resource Centers and division offices by providing direct technical assistance to FHWA staff and state and local DOTs. Some RTCC members from state DOTs were aware of and complimentary about this function.

During the laboratory tour and conversations that followed, the committee learned more about RD&T’s interest in doing even more to further the development and use of digital infrastructure. This interest comports with THFRC’s long-range plan to further research in emerging areas with the potential for transformational impacts. It also aligns with Congress’ expectation that FHWA RD&T address the needs of its highway agency customers who see digital infrastructure as a means of accelerating the delivery of highway projects and transforming asset management. Having a national perspective, THRFC is positioned to identify and fill gaps in digital infrastructure research that are not being addressed in other highway RD&T, while also building links among organizations with common research interests and needs to maximize the return on research investments and avoid unnecessary duplication of research effort.

RD&T Coordination and Collaboration

By taking such a strategic role in conducting and coordinating digital infrastructure RD&T, FHWA intends to fill a void that arises from the decentralized highway RD&T enterprise. The coordination challenge was highlighted in TRB’s 2024 report Tackling the Road Safety Crisis: Saving Lives Through Research and Action,¹⁰ which was commissioned by FHWA, state DOTs through NCHRP, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The committee that authored that report observed that because the nation’s roadway safety research enterprise lacks strategic coordination and direction, important gaps in knowledge are allowed to persist and the pace of innovation is slowed.

Unfortunately, however, a countervailing development that surfaced during the meeting is that TFHRC researchers are finding that their ability to consult and collaborate with state and local DOTs, regional planning organizations, universities, and private industry is becoming increasingly constrained, along with their ability to share and promote research results. The reported constraints include requirements for lengthy and cumbersome administrative reviews of all staff research publications and presentation materials and restrictions on attendance at

__________________

conferences and other gatherings involving the customers of TFHRC’s research, such as peer exchanges and events held in states by AASHTO. TFHRC’s online presence has also diminished, as links to some research projects and databases, such as the Highway Safety Information System (HSIS), are no longer operational.

These developments are at odds with TFHRC’s statutory obligations to consult stakeholders as well as RD&T’s stated mission is to “conduct and coordinate transportation research and advance innovation to enhance safety and mobility for all.”¹¹ Having firsthand knowledge of the benefits of FHWA’s collaborations on research, technology transfer, and data programs—from the promotion of the then ground-breaking Superpave asphalt mix design, which substantially improved the durability of asphalt pavements, to the multi-state HSIS database used for highway safety analyses—committee members worry that an increasingly sequestered TFHRC will be detrimental to highway agencies and the public.

RD&T Program Evaluation

As it has in past letter reports, the RTCC recognizes these and many other important contributions that FHWA makes in conducting and coordinating highway RD&T and evaluating the benefits of these efforts to highway agency customers and highway users. In response to RTCC recommendations, FHWA RD&T commissioned formal, independent evaluations of many of its RD&T programs and projects by USDOT’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and more recently by TRB’s CRP. These evaluations have shed light on outcomes that have been highly successful, modest, and in some cases disappointing, as might be expected from an RD&T program whose multi-pronged mission is to conduct and promote applied, fundamental, and high-risk research and innovation. Insight gained from the evaluations should help FHWA help shape its RD&T program while also provide tangible evidence for communicating the value of its RD&T activities. Convincing policymakers and the public about the value of highway research can be challenging, but doing so remains an imperative, especially in a budget-constrained environment demanding new ideas and innovations.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion 1: FHWA’s TFHRC appropriately focuses on research and innovation to further its stated mission to “enhance safety and mobility for all.” TFHRC does this through a program of research, development, and support for implementing innovations that emphasizes the safety, preservation, modernization, and resilience of the nation’s highways.

Recommendation 1: TFHRC should continue to prioritize RD&T on highway safety and infrastructure preservation, modernization, and resilience as imperatives for furthering its mission to enhance safety and mobility for all.

Conclusion 2: Constraints on the ability of TFHRC researchers to consult, communicate, and collaborate with external parties are becoming increasingly problematic for ensuring relevant and impactful work. TFHRC researchers and research managers need to connect regularly with

__________________

the state DOTs and other customers of highway research, and they need to collaborate and exchange ideas and information with other researchers, including from state DOTs, other government agencies, universities, and the private sector.

Recommendation 2: FHWA leadership should expect and provide opportunities for TFHRC research staff to meet with state DOTs, their research and innovation customers, and external researchers on a regular basis. FHWA RD&T leadership and researchers need to regularly consult and communicate with their RD&T partners and customers about their products, receive feedback on research opportunities and directions, and coordinate their research portfolios. Potential mechanisms include peer exchanges, annual webinars with state leaders, and attendance at external conferences and workshops.

Conclusion 3: The decentralized highway RD&T enterprise allows FHWA and its state and university partners to set their own research priorities and agendas. While this decentralization allows for independence, it can result in RD&T with limited transparency, strategic alignment, and coordination as needed to fill research gaps, exchange innovative new ideas, and share experiences with implementation.

Recommendation 3: In consultation with its partners and customers, FHWA RD&T should develop a national-level strategic roadmap for highway research and innovation that establishes RD&T goals and plans for achieving them in concert with others in the highway research enterprise. The roadmap would help FHWA align its research with national and state priorities and facilitate the coordination and collaboration among TFHRC, state DOTs, UTCs, and others in the discovery, development, and deployment of innovation.

Conclusion 4: TFHRC has expert staff and laboratories with specialized and unique capabilities for the development and testing of new technologies and prototypes, materials design and testing, assessment of human factors for infrastructure design and CAVs, and forensic investigations of infrastructure failures. THFRC’s role in providing technical assistance to state DOTs has long augmented the assistance provided by FHWA’s Resource Centers at division offices, and this assistance will be increasingly important where division offices have lost Resource Center expertise.

Recommendation 4: To maintain and strengthen its role in highway research and innovation, TFHRC should remain forward-looking by programming research for transformative technologies and practices, while also being responsive to its state and local highway agency customers by coordinating and conducting research that meets their current needs and by providing them with technical assistance that cannot be provided at FHWA’s division offices.

Conclusion 5: FHWA RD&T’s leadership has expressed an interest in doing even more to further the development and use of digital infrastructure, drawing on its already robust program of activities in this domain. This interest is consistent with the priority that its state and industry partners have placed on this capability to confer critical benefits such as accelerating the delivery of highway projects, improving the quality of infrastructure, and transforming asset management.

Recommendation 5: FHWA RD&T should establish a research and implementation strategy that elevates TFHRC’s role in advancing digital infrastructure and data systems—for applications ranging from CAV to digital project delivery—by building on the center’s research in this area and by championing and coordinating the relevant research and innovation of state, university, and industry partners.

Conclusion 6: FHWA RD&T has increasingly subjected its RD&T programs, projects, and products to external evaluations of relevance, effectiveness, and impact, recognizing that such evaluations are a key element of the innovation lifecycle process. Effectively communicating the outcomes of these evaluations and the value of highway RD&T remains a challenge but an imperative, especially in a budget-constrained environment demanding new ideas and innovations.

Recommendation 6: In the manner of a learning organization, FHWA should continue to critically evaluate the relevance, effectiveness, and impact of its RD&T activities, as necessary for continual improvement, shaping future RD&T initiatives, and demonstrating the value of highway RD&T to a variety of audiences.

CLOSING REMARKS

RTCC members are pleased to have had this opportunity to advise FHWA leadership in this letter report, which is offered in a constructive spirit. The committee’s members look forward to engaging in a continued dialogue when it meets again with the FHWA RD&T team later this year. Sadly, one of the RTCC’s members, Hani S. Mahmassani, passed away in July. Professor Mahmassani was a devoted member of the committee and a leading figure in the field of transportation research. He and his contributions to the RTCC, TRB, and the transportation research community will be sorely missed.

Finally, speaking in my capacity as both chair of the RTCC and a state DOT official, I view the FHWA RD&T program as essential to the states and local agencies as we plan for, manage, build, and operate the nation’s extensive system of highways. As you know, the states face many challenges as we try to serve the public with resources that never seem to be sufficient to meet all of the demands before us. Innovations developed and facilitated through FHWA RD&T are helping all of us as we strive to meet these demands. I look forward to continuing the important relationship between the RTCC and FHWA under your tenure.

Sincerely,

Carlos M. Braceras, P.E.
Chair, Research and Technology Coordinating Committee

cc: Gloria M. Shepherd, Executive Director, FHWA
Joseph Hartmann, Associate Administrator, RD&T

Attachment A

Research and Technology Coordinating Committee

Carlos M. Braceras (Chair), Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation

David Harkey, President, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and Highway Loss Data Institute

Andrew Heath, Deputy Chief Engineer, Georgia Department of Transportation

Beverly Thompson Kuhn, Founder and Manager, C-DEX Advisors, LLC

Daniel C. Murray, Senior Vice President, American Transportation Research Institute

Juan Douglas Rogers, Professor of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology

Pragati Srivastava, Administrator, Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization

Joyce Taylor, Deputy Commissioner, Maine Department of Transportation

Randy C. West, Director, National Center for Asphalt Technology, and Research Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Auburn University

C.Y. David Yang, President and Executive Director, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

Attachment B

Research and Technology Coordinating Committee Statement of Task

This project will conduct a review of the highway research, development, and technology (RD&T) efforts of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The review will include the whole process of research agenda setting, stakeholder involvement, conduct of research, peer review, deployment, and program and project evaluation.

The study committee will provide strategic, research policy–level advice on topical priorities, processes, and strategies to accelerate the adoption of innovation. The committee will monitor and review FHWA’s research and technology programs and activities and advise FHWA on (a) research agenda setting and coordination of highway research with states, universities, and other partners; (b) strategies to accelerate research and the deployment and adoption of innovation; and (c) potential areas where research is needed. The committee will hold at least two meetings per year, issue a letter report at least annually, or periodically issue more in-depth consensus reports as requested by FHWA. These reports will be subject to the report review procedures of the RRC.

In addition to providing advice to FHWA, the committee will act as the advisory committee for the FHWA Research Support Program. This advisory activity will entail vetting of the program’s project selections and monitoring the progress of those projects.

Attachment C

Reviewers

This letter report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this letter report:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by CRAIG E. PHILIP (NAE), Vanderbilt University. He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.