NCHRP 07-31 [RFP]
State DOT and Tribal Use of Active Transportation Data: Practices, Sources, Needs, and Gaps
Posted Date: 11/7/2022
| Project Data
|(Includes 1 month for NCHRP review and approval of each interim report and 3 months for NCHRP review and for contractor revision of the final report)
|Authorization to Begin Work:
||4/15/2023 -- estimated |
||Stephan A. Parker
|RFP Close Date:
In 2018, 6,283 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes in the United States, 17% of all traffic fatalities and the highest since 1990. This is a 3.4% increase in pedestrian fatalities from 2017. Pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities increased by 32% in the 10-year period between 2008 and 2017. During that same time period, total traffic fatalities decreased by 0.8%. Studies have shown that pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities represent only the “tip of the iceberg” with respect to all crashes involving these modes. Prior research indicates that more than half of all pedestrian/bike injuries are unreported in the police data systems used by state safety programs. Improved data to measure non-fatal injuries will vastly enhance the validity of the tools applied by state departments of transportation (DOTs) and tribes to prioritize safety investments.
State DOTs and tribal agencies use data to inform decision-making processes from statewide, tribal, and regional planning, to project-level planning and development, to the evaluation of completed projects. However, data sources are not always available for a variety of reasons: agencies have not set up systems or prioritized data collection for these modes to the same level that they have for driving, existing data that are mainly utilized for other purposes have not yet been identified as usable for active transportation purposes, agencies have not prioritized collecting and stewarding their data, or agencies have not gone in search of sources to supplement what they could be doing themselves. Data could be a powerful tool for agencies when determining which bicycle and pedestrian corridors/projects are most critical and, once built, clearly quantifying their effects and potential maintenance requirements to allow sustainable usage. When states and tribes collect their own information, they may gather, clean, maintain, update, store, and publish their data.
State DOTs and tribes need up-to-date geospatial data that indicates where sidewalks, bicycle facilities, accessible public transportation stops and stations, and other infrastructure are located. For active transportation purposes, the condition of the infrastructure is important, including when considering Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines. Periodic analyses of conditions could be collected to determine rehabilitation for usage. Data could also identify populations more likely to utilize active transportation infrastructure and potentially aid in determining latent demand for the construction of such infrastructure. Clear data related to existing active transportation facilities would also help states quantify the effectiveness of these facilities and aid in pre- and post-construction analysis. Data standardization could facilitate peer comparisons and analyses on a state-to-state, tribe-to-tribe, regional, or national level. Active transportation data could also be synergized with other data sets (including those focused on environment, equity, environmental justice, and public health) for additional analyses.
State DOT and tribal active transportation programs and their partners at other state, local, tribal, and territorial organizations are looking to answer questions on data standardization, sharing, and governance such as:
- What innovative, cost-effective data use cases could provide scalable examples among state DOT and tribal practitioners?
- What nontraditional or unusual sources or applications of data (that may be primarily for other purposes) could be adapted or integrated into active transportation analyses (e.g., police and hospital reports)?
- What practices do peer agencies recommend for identifying, collecting, cleaning, utilizing, analyzing, standardizing, storing, publishing, and funding data? How do they address privacy and legal concerns?
- How can tribes and state DOTS exchange data with other tribal, state, and local governments; public transportation; and rural and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)?
- What data are available on funding, facilities, public initiatives, multi-use trails, bicycle sharing, micromobility usage, standard practices, staffing, maintenance agreements, regional data-sharing partnerships, and regional and interstate connectivity?
- How many lane-miles of facilities exist or are planned per active transportation mode? How do they relate to funding and funding sources?
- Where, specifically, are resources flowing (geographically)? What also may be behind local agencies not matching project costs by state and federal programs which may prevent active transportation enhancements?
- What resources exist in state DOTs, tribes, MPOs, and local governments? What is the bicycle/pedestrian share of funding and staffing?
- How are tribes and state DOTs staffed to acquire and utilize new data?
- What are examples of effective state DOT and tribal practices in the acquisition, use, maintenance, and application of data? How are they structured? How are they funded?
- How do state DOTs and tribes handle cross-border data practices, including cross-state MPOs, urban/rural overlaps, and tribal/non-tribal jurisdictions?
- What injury data monitoring/surveillance systems are in place? Are there opportunities to further enhance the ability of existing systems to document health and safety outcomes, particularly for active travel modes? What barriers or safeguards are there when it comes to sharing this information with state DOTs and tribes?
- What methods and data sources, if any, are used to measure injuries that are not reported in police crash report systems, including falls and crashes not directly involving vehicles that occur in the right-of-way and could be attributable to the built environment or used for safety and health planning purposes?
- What data is currently not being shared among jurisdictions? Why not?
- What data is currently not being collected? Why not?
- How often are data sets re-collected? Are there best practices to draw on in recommending the frequency of data updates?
Research is needed to summarize existing literature on active transportation data, catalog relevant sources and data sets related to active transportation, identify data needs, and identify data gaps.
The objective of this project is to develop a playbook for state DOTs and tribes on the use of active transportation data. At a minimum, the research team shall: (1) determine how state DOTs and tribes are using data; (2) identify data sources, gaps, and recommendations on the next steps to integrate and develop the data and tools state DOTs and tribes need; (3) assess the state of the practice regarding pedestrian and bicycle injury and death reporting and integration systems; (4) critically examine existing methods; (5) demonstrate best practices; and (6) identify future data improvement needs.
The NCHRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and contract time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the research objective.
The research plan will be divided into phases and each phase will be divided into tasks. The research plan should build in appropriate checkpoints with the NCHRP project panel, including, at a minimum, (1) a web-enabled kick-off teleconference meeting to be held within 1 month of the contract’s execution date; (2) at least one face-to-face interim deliverable review meeting; and (3) web-enabled meetings tied to panel review and/or NCHRP approval of interim deliverables. Costs for the face-to-face meeting venue and travel costs for NCHRP panel members to attend the meeting will be paid separately by NCHRP.
Potential tasks include but are not limited to:
- Review and summarize/synthesize current research on active transportation data practices.
- Through targeted outreach to state DOT and tribal staff, collect information on concerns, priorities, interests, and information gaps related to current and anticipated uses of active transportation data, including effective practices, case studies, checklists, example position descriptions, and scopes for consulting contracts.
- Describe data exchange practices and policies, including both (a) how state DOTs and tribes access data from MPOs; rural transportation planning organizations (RTPOs); tribal, state, and local agencies; and (b) how state DOTs and tribes share or publish data. Describe the current state of data sources and uses, including barriers to accessing data. Potential examples include Florida’s geographic information system (GIS) layer on bike lanes, right-of-way (ROW) data and update basis, utilities (particularly as they affect project costs), and design speed/posted speed.
- Describe to what degree tribes and state DOTs are aware of and adhering to the Consensus Recommendations for Pedestrian Injury Surveillance and using similar or standard and comparable definitions of pedestrians, bicyclists, and assistive mobility device users for non-fatal injury reporting. For emerging travel modes where standard definitions do not exist (such as e-scooters and other forms of micro-mobility), what definitions are being used to track non-fatal injury reporting? How are facility data ingested into injury and fatality reporting so that contributing factors can be understood and addressed?
- Summarize tribal and state DOT data unmet needs, sorting them into larger buckets, such as condition ranking for active transportation infrastructure; assets; presence or absence of sidewalks and their condition; Americans with Disabilities Act (including Accessible Pedestrian Signals); safety [including signalization, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP), and cost-benefit analysis (CBA)]; equity; and Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).
- Catalog public and private active transportation data sets including facility and usage data. Identify common attributes and uses, including both well-known sources (e.g., American Community Survey) and less utilized sources (e.g., police reports; hospital reports; bicycle/pedestrian cameras; counters on paths; intersection cameras; crowdsourced data (including facility maintenance requests, crash reporting, and usage); gray literature (e.g., Masters theses and PhD dissertations); and identified gaps in demographic data on bicycle/pedestrian facilities availability and use, quality of bicycle/pedestrian networks, and associated maps.
- Conduct a gap analysis between the data and resources that tribes and state DOTs need/want versus what is currently available/being used. Unmet needs include the identification of problem areas/geographic locations; disparate or disproportionate availability of facilities; and public availability of data/maps. How is the lack of infrastructure in minoritized communities being assessed? What factors are there that detail the lack of infrastructure in underserved socio-economic zones (e.g., lack of staffing and economics to match grants)? What are key metrics for equity in bicycle/pedestrian facilities and operations? What gaps are due to data restrictions (e.g., HIPAA)? How might they be overcome?
- Develop recommendations on the next steps for developing, standardizing, maintaining, and storing the identified data, information, models, and/or tools; policy options for bicycle/pedestrian data parity with roads, bridges, and transit; metrics used; funding; and project selection decisions. Are there pilots that can be broadly adopted after a successful demonstration? Are there examples of rapid deployment from pilots?
- Develop a draft national standardized format for data from MPOs (and other entities) to be ingested into state DOT and tribal data systems addressing safety; accessibility; equity; assets and asset management; state of good repair; equity in performance measures; and access to meaningful destinations. Include a basis for measuring and reporting how such data are being meaningfully applied to funding decisions.
The final deliverables will include but not be limited to:
- A Playbook for State DOT and Tribal Use of Active Transportation Data. Include case examples of current agency best practices around fatal and non-fatal injury data monitoring and linkage that demonstrates the value of investment in data linkage and highlights how agency practices leverage data improvements for various purposes.
- A stand-alone technical memorandum that identifies implementation pathways, key implementers of the results, and well-defined scopes of work for further dissemination and pilot implementation of the draft standard and Playbook. The technical memorandum should provide adequate detail about how state DOTs, tribes, and other agencies can implement the results of NCHRP Project 07-31 (see Special Note I).
- A report with the following:
- Documentation of the research activities;
- Key findings;
- A draft standardized format for data; and
- Other topics identified during the project.
· Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, the remaining 3 months shall be for NCHRP review and comment (1 month) and for research agency preparation of the final deliverables (2 months).
A. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs were revised in May 2022. Please take note of the new and revised text which is highlighted in yellow.
B. Proposals must be submitted as a single PDF file with a maximum file size of 10 MB. The PDF must be formatted for standard 8½” X 11” paper, and the entire proposal must not exceed 60 pages (according to the page count displayed in the PDF). Proposals that do not meet these requirements will be rejected. For other requirements, refer to chapter V of the instructions.
C. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs have been modified to include a revised policy and instructions for disclosing Investigator Conflict of Interest. For more information, refer to chapter IV of the instructions. A detailed definition and examples can be found in the CRP Conflict of Interest Policy for Contractors. The proposer recommended by the project panel will be required to submit an Investigator Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form as a prerequisite for contract negotiations.
D. Proposals will be rejected if any of the proposed research team members work for organizations represented on the project panel. The panel roster for this project can be found at https://www.mytrb.org/OnlineDirectory/Committee/Details/6314. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.
E. Proprietary Products - If any proprietary products are to be used or tested in the project, please refer to Item 6 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals.
F. Proposals are evaluated by the NCHRP staff and project panels consisting of individuals collectively knowledgeable in the problem area. The project panel will recommend their first choice proposal considering the following factors: (1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experiment design; (3) the experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the plan for ensuring application of results; (5) how the proposer approaches inclusion and diversity in the composition of their team and research approach, including participation by certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; and, if relevant, (6) the adequacy of the facilities. A recommendation by the project panel is not a guarantee of a contract. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS - the contracting authority for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) will conduct an internal due diligence review and risk assessment of the panel’s recommended proposal before contract negotiations continue.
Note: The proposer's approach to inclusion and diversity as well as participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises should be incorporated in Item 11 of the proposal.
G. Copyrights - All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and photographic images, and other information prepared under the contract and the copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academy of Sciences. The contractor and subcontractors will be able to publish this material for non-commercial purposes, for internal use, or to further academic research or studies with permission from TRB Cooperative Research Programs. The contractor and subcontractors will not be allowed to sell the project material without prior approval by the National Academy of Sciences. By signing a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, contractors accept legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist in work done for TRB. Contractors are therefore responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions for use of copyrighted material in TRB's Cooperative Research Programs publications. For guidance on TRB's policies on using copyrighted material please consult Section 5.4, "Use of Copyrighted Material," in the Procedural Manual for Contractors.
H. Proposals should include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in Figure 4 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals. Proposals also should include a breakdown of all costs (e.g., wages, indirect costs, travel, materials, and total) for each task using Figures 5 and 6 in the brochure. Please note that TRB Cooperative Research Program subawards (selected proposers are considered subawards to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB) must comply with 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. These requirements include a provision that proposers without a "federally" Negotiated Indirect Costs Rate Agreement (NICRA) shall be subject to a maximum allowable indirect rate of 10% of Modified Total Direct Costs. Modified Total Direct Costs include all salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each lower tier subaward and subcontract. Modified Total Direct Costs exclude equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each lower tier subaward and subcontract in excess of $25,000.
I. The required technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” should (a) provide recommendations on how to best put the research findings/products into practice; (b) identify possible institutions that might take leadership in applying the research findings/products; (c) identify issues affecting potential implementation of the findings/products and recommend possible actions to address these issues; and (d) recommend methods of identifying and measuring the impacts associated with implementation of the findings/products. Implementation of these recommendations is not part of the research project and, if warranted, details of these actions will be developed and implemented in future efforts.
The research team will be expected to provide input to an implementation team consisting of panel members, AASHTO committee members, the NCHRP Implementation Coordinator, and others in order to meet the goals of NCHRP Active Implementation: Moving Research into Practice, available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP_ActiveImplementation.pdf
J. If the team proposes a Principal Investigator who is not an employee of the Prime Contractor, or if the Prime Contractor is proposed to conduct less than 50% of the total effort (by time or budget), then section five of the proposal should include: (1) a justification of why this approach is appropriate, and (2) a description of how the Prime Contractor will ensure adequate communication and coordination with their Subcontractors throughout the project.
K. All budget information should be suitable for printing on 8½″ x 11″ paper. If a budget page cannot fit on a single 8½″ x 11″ page, it should be split over multiple pages. Proposers must use the Excel templates provided in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs.
L. Useful resources for this project include
- Invisible Women by Carolina Criado Perez https://carolinecriadoperez.com/book/invisible-women/
- Research Roadmap for the AASHTO Council on Active Transportation https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4808
- UNC Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety https://www.roadsafety.unc.edu/research/projects/2018-r12/
- BTSCRP Project BTS-10, "E-Scooter Safety: Issues and Solutions" https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4793
- TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Handbook, Third Edition; Chapter 16, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/167122.aspx
- 2020 Washington State Active Transportation Plan Part 1, 2020 and Beyond https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2009/03/09/Active-Transportation-Plan-2020-and-Beyond-Part1.pdf
- Data Governance & Data Management Case Studies of Select Transportation Agencies https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/53783
- Economic and Health Benefits of Walking, Hiking, and Bicycling on Recreational Trails in Washington State https://rco.wa.gov/reports-and-studies/recreation/benefits-of-recreational-trails/
- Trail Use Happens Statewide https://rco.wa.gov/reports-and-studies/recreation/benefits-of-recreational-trails/
- Video Analytics Towards Vision Zero https://bellevuewa.gov/sites/default/files/media/pdf_document/2020/Video%20Analytics%20Towards%20Vision%20Zero-Traffic%20Video%20Analytics-12262019.pdf
- Video Analytics Towards Vision Zero Toolkit http://toolkits.ite.org/visionzero/videoanalytics/index.html
- GSA’s Technology Transformation Services https://10x.gsa.gov/projects/
- Why Sweden Clears Snow-Covered Walkways Before Roads https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/24/why-sweden-clears-walkways-before-roads/
- League of American Bicyclists 2018 Benchmarking Report on Bicycling and Walking. https://bikeleague.org/benchmarking-report
- Best Practices: How Seville Became a City of Cyclists https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/10/13/best-practices-how-seville-became-a-city-of-cyclists/
- Adult On-Road Cyclist Injury in Victoria, 2008/09 to 2017/18: A Report on Ambulance Attendances, Emergency Department Presentations, Hospital Admissions and Deaths https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/2186956/Hazard87-FINAL.pdf
- Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/factsfigures/facts_safety.cfm.
- NCHRP Synthesis 558: Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25995/availability-and-use-of-pedestrian-infrastructure-data-to-support-active-transportation-planning
- NCHRP Report 920: Management and Use of Data for Transportation Performance Management: Guide for Practitioners http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/179095.aspx
- FHWA Roadway Data Improvement Program (RDIP) https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/fhwasa17013.pdf
- National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/national-center-statistics-and-analysis-ncsa
- Estimating the Benefits of a More Complete Pedestrian Injury Reporting System https://rns.trb.org/details/dproject.aspx?n=29212
- Primer on Safe System Approach for Pedestrians and Bicyclists https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa21065.pdf
- NCHRP Web-Only Document 302: Development of a Comprehensive Approach for Serious Traffic Crash Injury Measurement and Reporting Systems https://www.nap.edu/catalog/26305/development-of-a-comprehensive-approach-for-serious-traffic-crash-injury-measurement-and-reporting-systems
This is a firm deadline, and extensions are not granted. In order to be considered for award, the agency's proposal accompanied by the executed, unmodified Liability Statement must be in our offices not later than the deadline shown, or the proposal will be rejected.
The signature of an authorized representative of the proposing agency is required on the unaltered statement in order for TRB to accept the agency's proposal for consideration. Proposals submitted without this executed and unaltered statement by the proposal deadline will be summarily rejected. An executed, unaltered statement indicates the agency's intent and ability to execute a contract that includes the provisions in the statement.
Here is a fillable PDF version of the Liability Statement. A free copy of the Adobe Acrobat PDF reader is available at https://www.adobe.com.
1. According to the provisions of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, which relates to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs, all parties are hereby notified that the contract entered into pursuant to this announcement will be awarded without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability.
2. The essential features required in a proposal for research are detailed in the current brochure entitled "Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals". Proposals must be prepared according to this document, and attention is directed specifically to Section V for mandatory requirements. Proposals that do not conform with these requirements will be rejected.
3. The total funds available are made known in the project statement, and line items of the budget are examined to determine the reasonableness of the allocation of funds to the various tasks. If the proposed total cost exceeds the funds available, the proposal is rejected.
4. All proposals become the property of the Transportation Research Board. Final disposition will be made according to the policies thereof, including the right to reject all proposals.
5. Potential proposers should understand that follow-on activities for this project may be carried out through either a contract amendment modifying the scope of work with additional time and funds, or through a new contract (via sole source, full, or restrictive competition).