Business Meetings
LTAP–TTAP TRB highlights 2008

TRB Session #233 – Tribal Policy Issues and Research Needs: Points to Ponder for Next Reauthorization of Federal Transportation Legislation – Monday, January 14th, 2008

This was a panel discussion about the issues facing Tribes in the area of transportation and what efforts are being made by what organizations/stakeholders as to getting the identified needs addressed within the next piece of transportation legislation. A newly formed task force between National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the Inter–Tribal Transportation Association (ITA) is working to address transportation issues in Indian Country, and be proactive.

Sponsored by the Native American Transportation Issues Committee

TRB Committee Meeting – ABE 80, Native American Transportation Issues Committee – Monday, January 14th, 2008

Committee is looking for committee members, developing research statements and working on developing a website (Michigan Tech TTAP will be developing and hosting their website). The committee heard from many 'liaison' committees working on research, or developing their own research statements and are interested in doing research in their field in relation to Tribes – archeological/historical preservation, transit, safety, transportation planning, environmental justice, rural roads. Descriptions of research projects just 'let' for bid was presented. A point was made that to make Indian research credible in Indian Country; Native Americans/Indians need to be part of technical review panels. There is a tribal transportation planning tool coming out soon, a board game, called 'Reservation Road' board game. Main mode of distribution will be via TTAPs. This committee's mid–year meeting will be June 1–4, 2008 in Reno, NV in conjunction with the NCAI meeting. More detailed meeting minutes available through Committee Chair.

TRB Sub–Committee Meeting –ABE 80(1), Tribal Safety Issues Subcommittee Monday, January 14th, 2008

Discussion amongst stakeholders about what's happening in Indian Highway Safety – Road Safety Audits, Pedestrian Safety Audits (FHWA tool), Strategic Highway Safety Plans on Indian Lands, State DOTs using Native American strategies and Tribal Safety Summits happening nationally (Minnesota, Summer of 2008). More detailed meeting minutes available through Committee Chair.

Transportation Safety Planning (TSP) Committee:

Good meeting with lots of information for any transportation professional interested in safety. The State Safety Fact Sheets were presented as well as the "Transportation Planner's Safety Desk Reference." A briefing book on safety planning with highlights will be available this May (2008). The TSP working group had a role in these products. They can be accessed at http://tsp.trb.org. The Committee is working on an RFP for an implementation plan for the SHSPs including tying these to the State TIPs. Sue Miller, NACE President Elect made a short presentation on NACE's safety activities and talked about the problems actually implementing low cost safety improvements at the local level. Marie Walsh from LA chimed in with the problems their program has had with the same type of projects.

TRB Session #479 –Systems Thinking Approach to Change and Technology Transfer – Tuesday, January 15th, 2008

This session discussed organizational thinking, and how we as a working civilization and as organizations need to evolve in our thinking and problem solving. It acknowledged the challenges faced by organizations and the workforce today –costs, system complexities, changing technologies and changing requirements. The speaker also said that lack of focus is a barrier to technology transfer.

"The way organizations are is a product of how we think & how we interact; they cannot change in any fundamental way unless we change our basic patterns of thinking & interacting."
–Quote by Peter Senge, used by session speaker

Systems Thinking is about relationships. The speaker talked about 'strategic planning' versus 'strategic thinking'. Strategic planning being activity–based, linear, revolving around data; where we do analysis by taking something apart, looking at each piece and then putting it back together again; mechanistic, static and fixed. The speaker summed up strategic planning as "doing your best in isolation does not work. It's ineffective."

Strategic thinking is understanding patterns, and cause and effect. It's viewing situations and scenarios as a whole, or future thinking. It is circular, encompassing multiple stakeholders; the interaction of 'parts'; organismic (where relationships change constantly), dynamic.

The speaker said that today, leaders need new ways to solve problems and make decisions. That there needs to be an inter–dependence, shared vision, a common language and an alignment of thoughts and actions. He described four levels of thinking, in a pyramid –1) event, 2) patterns, 3) systemic structure, 4) assumptions, views, thoughts (listed from top, down). Mental models come out of our assumptions, views and thoughts, and become small scale models of reality that our minds construct.

Mental models:

• IAKI –I already know it.
• PITM –Prove it to me
• NMJ –Not my job
• NIH –Not Invented Here

These mental models are the basis of most decisions and resulting actions. They become barriers, but it is our images that drive us into action, or are our motivation. The mental models give us limitations. We ignore crucial info or perceive non–existent correlations. We perceive random data as patterns and end of seeing what we expect to see, where it's there or not.

The speaker also made reference to differences in work capacity vs. work intensity and how important it is for us as workers to create a balanced support system or office. He spoke of how the downsizing of 'having to do more with less' era has created troubling trends, and consequences. He talked about soft barriers too –workload, pressure, motivation, recognition –and how these are 'drivers' for staff turnover. He explained how workload affects internal communication, and how we are creating a 'vicious circle' by reinforcing in a negative fashion.

There are several simulation software packages available for an organization to do some internal assessing and analysis.

He also stated that 2 or 3 people at any level can impact or influence an organization's system and make a difference.

It was a good session. The information provided could be applied to many of the roles one has in life –worker, supervisor, organizational leader, as well as in personal relationships. You can identify yourself in the mental models, allowing you to see what was holding you back, what your barriers were. The presentation also showed that just one person within a large organization, can even make a difference.

Session Sponsored by the Technology Transfer Committee

TRB Session #479 –Systems Thinking Approach to Change and Technology Transfer – Tuesday, January 15th, 2008

Systems Thinking Approach to Change and Technology Transfer
As noted in the 1999 Transportation Research Board Report # 256, Managing Technology Transfer: A Strategy for the Federal Highway Administration, technology transfer is identified as being essential for implementation of research projects. The technology transfer process includes identifying innovative technologies from many sources, applying effective transfer methods, and evaluating the results of successful outcomes. Local Technical Assistance Programs (LTAPs) are acknowledged as conduits for successful technology transfer.

LTAP Highlights
Frequently, LTAP involvement in technology transfer does not occur until after research has been developed and is ready for implementation. It includes the following actions:

• Potential user involvement in the adoption of new technologies,
• Promoting new technologies through piloted projects,
• Providing technical assistance for users,
• Championing new technologies, and
• Sponsoring technical training that enhances implementation of projects (TRB, 1999).

LTAP's success with technology transfer has been related to the Innovation Process, a layered educational approach for adoption of new technologies. Innovation includes four stages: awareness, attitude formation and persuasion, trial and decision making, and confirmation. There are countless examples of how LTAP successfully facilitates innovation through promotion of awareness in newsletters, while attitude formation and persuasion occurs with the distribution of resources. Also, the trial and decision–making stage is addressed as the aftermath of product demonstrations and confirmation is linked to evaluation.

Challenges
During the past several years, technology transfer has been supplanted by work force development, another critical issue for the transportation industry. However, this change of focus and other barriers have inhibited the implementation of new technologies to address increasing transportation demands. Furthermore, some state research agencies have experienced a decline in their ability to conduct technology transfer and product implementation due to a shrinking work force. In New Jersey, a retiring work force caused the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Research and Demonstration, to seek alternate options for conducting their technology transfer activities.

A viable solution for the Bureau is to team with NJ LTAP and conduct an implementation study of NJDOT funded projects. Although the study is ongoing and expected to be completed in 2008, several important barriers to technology transfer have been identified that compare to the implementation restrictions found in the 1999 TRB study.

Table 1. Barriers to Technology Transfer and Implementation
TRB Study of FHWA	NJDOT Research Bureau	Research Investigators
Absence of Strategic Focus	Limited Staff	No Champion
Disinterest by Public Sector in New Products	Limited Value of Research	Lack of Support from Administration
Cost	Cost/Lack of Resources	Cost
Limited Understanding of Innovation	Changing Technology and Eroding Industrial Base	Benefits Are Difficult to Quantify

In order to overcome these barriers to technology transfer and implementation (Table 1), the Systems Thinking Approach (Maani, 2007) has been introduced to broaden the process by viewing the big picture at the beginning stage of research planning. This strategic thinking focus helps to determine how the parts of research and implementation affect the whole transportation environment. The first step is to review events and identify patterns between agencies. Next, the consequences of cause and effect are determined based on the environment. Future scenarios are then developed with input from as many stakeholders as possible (i.e. DOT Research, University Transportation Centers, LTAP, customers, etc.). The outcomes then support a value driven research, development, and implementation process!

Recommendations for LTAP in the Future

• An opportunity exists for LTAP Centers to partner with UTCs and DOT Research Agencies to support technology transfer effort within their States.
• Adoption of the Systems Thinking Approach to remove barriers to technology transfer.
• Involve stakeholders in the planning phase of research development and implementation.

For More Information
Dr. Claudia Knezek
Center for Advanced Infrastructure and
Transportation (CAIT)
New Jersey LTAP
100 Brett Road
Piscataway, NJ 08854
Phone: 732–445–3632, ext. 109
knezek@rci.rutgers.edu

TRB Session #578 –Making the Case for Funding: Marketing, Messaging, and Education –Tuesday, January 15th, 2008

The session discussed ways to 'sell' yourself, or organization as a good value and provider of services. It was acknowledged that we are in a consumer economy, where everyone demands a good product. Some key points & methods identified were as follows:

1. Deliver a standard message several times a year.
2. Credibility takes years to build (estimate 4 years).
3. Consensus among all stakeholders is critical.
4. The product to be delivered = your capacity.
5. Being 'of the past' will not be successful.
6. Promise customer use of context–sensitive solutions.
7. There is a difference in wholesale versus retail delivery (marketing, communication).
8. Use key messaging about what you plan to do differently (no change in performance, just in the messaging & communicating that effectively).
9. Appeal, campaign to the public.
10. Can't rely on your newsletter or press to tell your story. There is a lot of ineffective communication going from an agency, out.
11. There is 'information asymmetry'...an imbalance between what an agency knows about its performance versus what the public knows about agency management and results.
12. Lead with good and bad news, especially the bad news, plenty of time in advance (not last minute).

There was discussion of performance journalism –good stories, good writing, good data and good graphics. Also, a four (4) criteria info model –1) benefit of service; 2) current revenue is inadequate; 3) the absence of waste; 4) funding comparisons with similar entities.

Gather –––– Structure –––– Educate     =     Public Support

Some useful information here for strategizing either an individual LTAP/TTAP Center, a group or consortium of Centers (including the NLTAPA organization).

Session Sponsored by Strategic Management Committee and Management and Productivity Committee

National Construction Career Days Meeting– Sunday, January 13, 2008

Jeff Cathcart reported that the National Construction Career Days Center was very pleased with the attendance at our meeting and dinner on Sunday night. Representatives from the Connecticut, Puerto Rico, Massachusetts, Utah, Hawaii and Idaho LTAP Centers along with members of our advisory board, FHWA, state government and Construction Career Days planning committees exchanged ideas and discussed the future of Construction Career Days and workforce development.

They plan to make this an annual event at TRB.

For more information on events across the country, go to www.constructioncareerdays.us

NLTAPA Breakout Session on the LTAP Clearinghouse– Saturday, January 12, 2008

Alison Black, Director of the LTAP/TTAP Clearinghouse gave an overview of the Clearinghouse structure and staffing and provided an update on the products and services that had been provided to the LTAP community over the first year of their contract with FHWA.

Alison then gave a preview of products that are just about to be introduced to the community as well as deliverables that are in process and will be available later in the year.

The following is a summary of the products reviewed:

1. Members Only Section –the clearinghouse will be introducing a member's only section to be used by LTAP/TTAP centers. There will be levels of access available based on the discretion of each LTAP/TTAP Program Director. The Clearinghouse will be communicating with each center as the section becomes available to determine the develop log–in passwords for your staff.
2. One of the items on the new "Members Only" section will be an On–Line PAR Collection tool. This new on–line form was well received by the participants of the breakout session. It will be available for collection of 2008 PAR data. It is very user friendly and can be maintained on a continual basis all year or entered at the end of the year. This will be the required format for submission of your 2008 PAR.
3. A new set of marketing materials is now available for use by the Clearinghouse and individual LTAP/TTAP centers. A supply of these brochures can be ordered from the Clearinghouse staff (contact Sarah Crane) and an insert is available that can be downloaded from the clearinghouse site for individual centers to customize to highlight their individual state success stories
4. Improvements are being made to the existing Trainer Database and will be introduced soon to centers. A center will be able to submit a list of their trainers and the Clearinghouse Staff will contact those trainers to encourage them to add their information to the database. The database will be searchable by areas of training expertise and by geographic areas.
5. The Clearinghouse is also working on resource database that will house technical and training resources; they will be working with centers to populate both this database and the trainer's database in the near future.

NLTAPA Breakout Session on Working with State Departments of Transportation– Saturday, January 12, 2008

Jim Grothaus and Janet Leli opened up the session by explaining that centers have expressed a desire to learn how other LTAP/TTAPs work with their state DOTs, and that NLTAPA is interested in knowing what centers feel our message to AASHTO should be.

Steve Mueller of the FHWA Resource Center noted that of the 4 million miles of roads, the federal government owns 3%, states own 20%, and locals own 77%.

Each attendee was asked to describe their own organization's relationship with their state DOT.

Minnesota reported that they have a good relationship with their DOT and that the DOT is spending money through the University Transportation Center to help fill a need where they have a workforce crisis.

Delaware reported that 90% of their highways are under the jurisdiction of the DOT, versus municipalities or cities. The LTAP is currently housed at the University of Delaware, but was previously part of the DOT (until 2002). Larry Klepner suggested that we remember that LTAP's "local" may not necessarily be a local government employee, but a state employee. In Delaware, the LTAP training is focused to the DOT needs and there is a lot of interaction. The DOT relies on LTAP for technical training. West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina have similar relationships.

In New Jersey, LTAP conducts roadway safety training and traffic control training for the DOT personnel. NJDOT has also outlined in job specifications that Traffic Control Coordinators be trained through the LTAP program in order to work on jobs funded by them. LTAP has also put together various customized training programs at the request of the DOT, such as Local Aid Superpave Design, Geometric Highway Design, and Police Crash Report Form training.

The Northern Plains TTAP reported that in the tribal areas of the states of South Dakota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana, their local customers issues are typically "local" issues and not DOT issues. The reservations have very poor quality roadway conditions. The Northern Plains TTAP observes that the state DOTs are being served well by the LTAPs in the area.

Colorado TTAP reported that in their area, tribal lands are crisscrossed by county and state roadways. Sometimes there are jurisdictional issues. Ron Hall gave an example that Road Safety Audits have been difficult to conduct because of lack of cooperation between the entities who should be involved– different parties are not willing to be at the table together.

The question of how much time is devoted to sustaining relationships with state DOTs was asked.

Minnesota and New Jersey concurred that their centers are within UTCs that already have strong DOT relationships and multiple contracts. Both centers have quarterly meetings with their DOT and are pro–active in dealing with their DOT Research divisions. Jim said that in Minnesota, he meets twice a year with the Minnesota DOT Maintenance division to pinpoint training needs that LTAP can address. Minnesota DOT contracts with the LTAP to do curriculum development for training needs that have been identified; this training is also useful for locals, and some seats are reserved for them.

Steve Mueller suggested that the NLTAPA Products and Services workgroup collaborate with the TCCC on training programs. *** Moderator note: these groups are talking to one another about program areas.

Ted indicated that the reality for his TTAP is that at the tribal level, training is focused differently than to that of a DOT. He also expressed that expertise is at a regional level and it is difficult to get that level of commitment down to the locals. Sometimes a political change helps foster buy–in; there needs to be consistent positive moving relationships between the tribes and the states. Reservations have the highest fatality rate in the nation and a lot of the problem is the lack of infrastructure funding in these areas.

Jim reported that in Minnesota, the DOT Civil Rights Office conducts an annual Tribes in Transportation conference.

Florida reported that their LTAP has a tech transfer agreement with their DOT. The LTAP supports the DOT with a website, newsletter, and research trading cards. The LTAP (tech transfer) center is also absorbing some of the training responsibilities from the DOT in several areas, such as asphalt training. They have also previously had a large safety training program supported by the DOT.

West Virginia DOT has successfully used project funds for LTAP training. Minnesota is using project funds for an apprenticeship program.

Nebraska has become the DOT conduit to training locals and coordinates the High Risk Rural Roads Program.

This session closed with a quick discussion about whether we need additional LTAP/TTAP focus areas nationally with supplemental resources. Could we use the LTAP/TTAP framework for a nationally based technology transfer initiative?

How do we integrate LTAP into AASHTO discussions? From the bottom–up.

It was collectively agreed that we need direction from AASHTO program areas and committees, and we need best practices examples from LTAP/TTAP centers.

NLTAPA Breakout Session on Safety– Saturday, January 12, 2008

FHWA'S Roadway Departure Program

• Focus: Improve safety through more effective program delivery, technical assistance and support, data analysis, research, and training for State DOT's and local agencies in order to keep vehicles on the roadway, alert drivers to conditions, and reduce crashes, the severity of crashes, fatalities and injuries.

Roadway departure (RD) crashes are the largest U.S. highway safety problem, accounting for 58% of all roadway fatalities and the 2 million serious injuries per year. Single vehicle RD crashes include run–off–the–road (ROR) crashes. Multiple vehicle RD crashes include opposite direction front–to–side crashes, head–on crashes, and opposite direction sideswipe crashes.

• 40–% of all fatalities are single vehicle, ROR crashes
• Many fatalities involve hitting fixed objects, including utility poles, sign and light supports, shrubbery and trees. (Shielding or removing fixed objects provides protection from some driver errors.)
• Nearly 70% of RD crashes are single vehicle ROR crashes
• Most are 2–lane rural !

FHWA's Roadway Departure program emphasizes the development of technical and briefing information for all levels of Federal, State DOT and local agency personnel, from top management to maintenance operations. Cross–cutting marketing, outreach & education are underway, including efforts to reach and educate non–Safety audiences such as resource agencies and others who impact transportation decisions. The RD Team is FHWA's contact point for the AASHTO Technical Committee on Roadside Safety and its revision of the Roadside Design Guide and for the AASHTO/FHWA Implementation Plan for new crash testing guidance (update to NCHRP 350): the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH 08).

FHWA has identified 17 Roadway Departure Focus States to receive additional technical assistance and support for accomplishing positive results in reducing crashes on 2–lane rural roads. These 17 States are those that each had at least 240 2–lane rural RD fatalities and a rural 2–lane RD fatality rate above the national average of 2.68/100M VMT: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington State.

This focused approach includes multi–level management and technical site visits, quarterly web conferences, and an increase in technical products in a variety of forms (report summaries, CD's, DVD's, brochures, fact sheets, etc.) on the most critical, high–risk areas (e.g., horizontal curves, pavement safety and roadside hardware). This information will be online and in the form of technical products available to all States and local agencies.

Technical Efforts and Products

Currently Available:

New: The Safety Edge (Brochure)
This revised brochure on the Safety Edge pavement treatment incorporates current research related to the recommended tapered wedge that mitigates pavement edge drop–off effects along the edges of both new asphalt lanes and subsequent maintenance overlays. The increased use of the Safety Edge can reduce the number of run–off–the–road crashes and decrease tort liability for the owner. (Publication # FHWA–SA–07–023)

New: Rumble Strips: A Sound Investment (DVD)
This 14–minute informational DVD introduces the viewer to shoulder, edge and centerline Rumble Strips and Rumble Stripes. These cost–effective treatments have been proven to save lives by reducing the number of RD crashes attributable to distracted or inattentive drivers. The DVD addresses issues associated with Rumble Strip's effectiveness, design, noise, motorcycles and bicycles. (Publication # FHWA–SA–07–024)

New: Final Rule on Sign Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity, effective 1–22–08, revises the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) with a new standard for an assessment or management method to maintain a minimum level of sign Retroreflectivity by 2012.

Low–Cost Treatments for Horizontal Curve Safety (Report and New Brochure)
Approximately 25% of highway fatalities occur at or near horizontal curves. This well–received report is a practical reference for treatments that transportation agencies can apply to keep vehicles on the roadway along horizontal curves and improve safety. The companion brochure highlights the information in and promotes the full report. (Publication # FHWA–SA–07–025 for the brochure and # FHWA–SA–07–002 for the report.)

Roadway Safety for Motorcycles: Tips for Designing, Constructing, and Maintaining Roadways for Increased Motorcycle Safety (Brochure)
Designed to raise awareness on actions by State and local agencies and others in design, construction, and maintenance to reduce increasing motorcycle fatalities and injuries. (Publication # FHWA–SA–07–012).

Highway Safety and Trees: The Delicate Balance (DVD and Brochure)
Designed to educate on the hazards of trees adjacent to roadways (and options). Stresses communication with the public and using design solutions for highway projects that fully and objectively consider safety as well as other community concerns. (DVD product # FHWA–SA–06–13. Brochure product # FHWA–SA–06–12.)

Safer Sign Supports: Are Yours Breakaway Yet? (Brochure)
Advocates replacing rigid sign poles with breakaway supports. Signs on highways posted 50 mph or more must be upgraded by 2013. Others can be upgraded when sign sheeting is replaced. (Product # FHWA–SA–06–14.)

Guidelines for the Selection of W–Beam Barrier Terminals (CD)
Shows the crash performance characteristics of the 3 major categories of W–beam terminals. "Must" viewing for those responsible for selecting, locating, installing, or repairing guardrail terminals. (Product # FHWA–SA–06–19.)

Good Practices: Incorporating Safety into Resurfacing and Restoration Projects (Report and CD)
Results of a domestic scan cosponsored by FHWA, AASHTO, and NACE in 6 states. The report identifies common issues, success factors and good institutional practices, including commitments to integrating safety in pavement preservation projects, making selective geometric improvements, identifying targeted safety countermeasures, traffic control devices, and improving roadsides. (Publication # FHWA–SA–07–001.)

Future efforts and Products include:

• Visibility and Retroreflectivity:
  • Maintaining Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity. FHWA is currently gathering input and conducting research in advance of proposed rulemaking on pavement marking.
  • Documents to Support Sign Retroreflectivity Rulemaking prepared to assist and guide practitioners, including a 4–page Maintaining Sign Retroreflectivity brochure, a research report on Methods for Maintaining Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity, newsletter articles, and updated FHWA and MUTCD websites.
• Landscaping Guidance. Based in part on a review of State landscaping policies and practices (e.g., for walls, rocks, signs, lighting, and trees), guidance will be issued that supports innovative accommodation of trees and other landscaping features to improve safety and avoid harm to the highway environment.
• Cross–Median Treatments (DVD). To reduce cross–median crashes, this DVD will address cable barriers, other barrier treatments, and minimum median width for which a barrier should be considered. Intended for all State DOT's at the District level and county and city highway engineers and decision–makers.
• The Safety Edge (DVD). A presentation and demonstration of the Safety Edge pavement treatment, which can reduce the number of run–off–the–road crashes and decrease tort liability for the owner.
• Ready–to–use technical training and briefing PowerPoint presentations, information sheets, and brochures on critical areas (e.g., pavement safety) for FHWA Division, State DOT and local agencies' use, such as technical presentations on: An Overview of Roadside Safety, A Strategic Approach to Reducing RD Crashes, and Low Cost Solutions for Rural 2–Lane Roads. Each will be in 2 formats: a 1–hour technical presentation and a 20 to 30–minute Executive Summary presentation.

Publications are or will be available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov. For copies of publications/CD's/DVD's (at no charge), contact the FHWA Report Distribution Center at (301) 577–0906, at report.center@fhwa.dot.gov, or via Fax: 301–577–1421, specifying the title and product/publication number.

For more assistance, information, and to make recommendations for future efforts and products, contact one of the FHWA's Division Office Safety Specialists or the FHWA Office of Safety Design's Roadway Departure Team Leader, Mary McDonough, at mary.mcdonough@dot.gov or (202) 366–2175.

Another document that was presented at the Breakout Session was the State Specific Safety Fact Sheet, to view your states sheet please follow the link: http://tsp.trb.org/assets/index2%20(2).pdf

TRB Technology Transfer Committee Meeting –Wednesday, January 16, 2008

• Introductions and announcements
• T2 Toolbox –Joe Toole: This Pooled Fund Study was originally designed to be an expert system to develop implementation plans, executive summaries and timelines for technology transfer efforts. Toole is working on a training course incorporating the toolbox concept. FHWA will start capturing information on technology transfer practices, developing a curriculum, and developing training modules, which would package knowledge in a variety of formats. Their goal is one module this fiscal year. They plan to tap into the expertise of committee members and keep the committee informed of their progress and availability of the resource. If you want to get involved contact Clark Martin at FHWA. Caltrans is also interested in moving this project foreword and expressed an interest in sponsoring a meeting in Irvine.
• An industry approach to collecting and sharing best practices –Joe Toole: Toole is also working on a project to collect and share best practices in the transportation area. The group discussed how to capture and facilitate sharing of this information, which will be a cross cutting issue. FHWA plans to hold a virtual workshop to scope this project. If you are interested contact Debbie Gwaltney.
• SHRP 2 and SHRP lessons learned –Joe Toole and Ann Brach: Ann Brach reported that SHRP 2 is preparing an implementation report which is due February 2009 to Congress. The report will include: identification of the most promising results of SHRP 2 research and the persons (key stakeholders) most likely to use the results; discussion of potential incentives for, impediments to, and methods of implementing those results; estimate of costs of implementation of those results; and recommendations on methods by which implementation of those results should be conducted, coordinated, and supported in future years, including a discussion of the administrative structure and organization best suited to carry out those recommendations. Critical implementation issues include indentifying and funding the principal implementation agents; working with users and stakeholders; establishing institutional structures; and long term homes for software and data produced in the research projects. Joe Toole will supplement the input from the report committee by pulling together a group on 14 February to examine the lessons learned from SHRP. Anyone with comments should contact Joe Toole.
• Minnesota Research Management System and Roadmap for Local, State and FHWA Research and Implementation (Innovation) investments – Cory Johnson, MnDOT: A presentation was made on MnDOT's research management system and roadmap for research.
• RAC Coordination and Collaboration Task Group –Sue Sillick: The RAC Coordination and Collaboration Group (http://research.transportation.org/?siteid=55&pageid=2454) are looking at tools to facilitate coordination and collaboration between people with research needs and researchers. In order to know who is doing what they would like to expand the use of the Research in Progress database (http://rip.trb.org/) and increase the number of complete records. TRB has developed a demo and webinar to promote increased use of RiP. They are also collecting stories about users' experience using RiP. They are also collecting collaboration success stories, developing a collaboration web site and preparing information on the funding of research.
• Update from Library and Information Science for Transportation (LIST) –Rita Evans: LIST has been working on enhancing and improving the Transportation Research Thesaurus (http://trt.trb.org/trt.asp), which is a controlled hierarchical vocabulary used to find transportation research information. Transportation Knowledge Networks have been formed in the East, Midwest (http://www.mtkn.org/index.htm) and West. TRIS (http://ntlsearch.bts.gov/tris/index.do) surveyed its users and over 800 separate comments were received.
• Evaluation of Technology Transfer: A Discussion – Barbara Harder, Kim Ferroni, Larry Orcutt: The speakers described a study to evaluate technology transfer efforts at the Pennsylvania LTAP Center and technologies transferred at Caltrans.
• Update from National Transportation Library (http://ntl.bts.gov/) –Amanda Wilson: Two new knowledge networks have been formed. NCHRP 20–75 is currently underway. Its purpose is to fund ways to implement TRB Special Report 284: Transportation Knowledge Networks: A Management Strategy for the 21st Century. NTL is also working on ways to improve accessibility and preservation of transportation information.
• Update from TRB –Kim Fisher: TRB is looking for feedback on housing issues at the annual meeting. Commercial exhibits were new this year.
• Midyear Meeting (Woods Hole for a joint COR and T2 committee meeting September 10–12, 2008)
• Research Needs Statements: Member Steven Jones developed the committee's first Research Needs Statement, which was distributed to at the meeting. He worked with Clark Moe (MnDOT) and Ivy Harris (AL DOT) to develop the statement, using ideas suggested from the committee. The statement will be distributed to the e–mail list for feedback and then added to the RNS database.
• What's New at LTAP –Marie Walsh: The National LTAP Association (NLTAPA) has performed a needs assessment of training products for the LTAP/TTAP centers. They will validate the results with customer groups. FHWA is exploring revamping the Product Demonstration Showcase Program. The program is revisiting the LTAP focus on technology transfer through strategic planning for the program.
• T2 Committee Session at 2007 Annual Meeting: The Committee thanks Claudia Knezek of Rutgers and Kambiz Maani of the University of Auckland, New Zealand for an excellent session on Systems Thinking Approach to Change and Technology Transfer.