BACKGROUND

Traffic intrusions into work zones present a significant safety risk to construction, maintenance, and utility workers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, struck-by crashes are a major cause of roadway construction worker deaths. A 2019 Associated General Contractors (AGC) of America survey found that 67 percent of contractors reportedly had a vehicle intrusion into one of their work zones during the year. It was also reported that eight percent of respondents had one of their workers killed in a work zone crash, and 28 percent had a worker injured by a vehicle in the work zone. Motorists are also at risk when intruding into a work zone, potentially colliding with work equipment and materials.

In addition, data are not available on the number of intrusions that occur, but do not result in a crash because the driver is able to turn the vehicle back into the travel lane. There is an immediate need to evaluate existing and develop new prediction models to estimate the likelihood of work zone intrusions to improve work zone safety management. The prediction model should reflect intrusion potential into work zones that are in travel lanes, have lane shifts, or have other work zone features that may influence intrusion risks.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project is to develop a guide to (1) assist state departments of transportation (DOTs) and local agencies to estimate the likelihood of work zone intrusions to improve work zone safety management and decision-making, and (2) develop countermeasures including prevention and mitigation strategies. At a minimum, the research team shall:

1.  Determine the frequency and characteristics of work zone intrusions and resulting crashes, fatalities, and injuries; and

2.  Develop tools to estimate the likelihood of work zone intrusions to improve work zone safety management and decision-making based on predictive models and methods.

TASKS

Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. 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.

PHASE I—Planning

Task 1. Conduct a literature review of state-of-practice research on work zone intrusions; prediction models; and existing countermeasures including prevention and mitigation strategies. The review shall include published and unpublished research conducted through the NCHRP; FHWA; and other national, international, state, and pooled-fund sponsored research.

Task 2. Survey stakeholders, including state agencies and contractors, to identify characteristics of and concerns regarding work zone intrusions. This survey should include the data collection methods and technologies used, as well as the intrusion factors that are collected.

Task 3. Determine the data required to better understand work zone intrusion frequency and characteristics.

Task 4. Synthesize the results of Tasks 1 through 3 to identify the knowledge gaps related to work zone intrusions; prediction models; prevention and mitigation strategies and technologies; and data availability and quality. These gaps should be addressed in the final product or the recommended future research, as budget permits. 

Task 5. Propose a methodology to achieve the research objective, to be fully developed in Phase II. At a minimum, the research methodology shall:

• Include data collection plan, sample size, data specifications, and a prioritized set of work zone intrusion scenarios for testing based on the results of Phase I. Scenarios proposed should consider different work zone durations as defined in the FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD);
• Conduct an assessment of current work zone intrusion prediction models and identify the data and scenarios commonly defined in the state-of-art (e.g., interstate/local, speed, traffic volume);
• Develop predictive models and methods to estimate intrusion likelihood as a function of key roadway, traffic, and work zone variables; and
• Develop decision-support tool(s) in Microsoft Excel or similar software to aid in implementing the predictive models and methods. Include a brief instruction manual for users of the tool(s) example scenarios and limitations of use.

Task 6. Propose a preliminary outline for the proposed guide and a description of the proposed tools to achieve the research objective.

Task 7. Prepare Interim Report No. 1 that documents Tasks 1 through 6, includes the data archiving and sharing plan (see Special Note B), and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. This report must be submitted to NCHRP no later than 6 months after contract execution. The updated work plan must describe the process and rationale for the work proposed for Phases II and III.

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 1 by the NCHRP, the research team will be required to meet with the NCHRP project panel to discuss the interim report. Work on Phases II and III of the project will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP. Phase I shall be limited to $60,000.

PHASE II—Data Collection and Methodology Development

Task 8. Collect and analyze data on work zone intrusion frequency and characteristics and resulting crashes, fatalities, and injuries at a sampling of work zones nationally, according to approved Interim Report No. 1.

Task 9. Execute the proposed methodology according to the approved Interim Report No.1.

Task 10. Prepare an annotated description of each section and subsection of the proposed guide.

Task 11. Prepare Interim Report No. 2 that documents the results of Tasks 8 through 10 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the project. This report is due no later than 15 months after approval of Phase I. The updated plan must describe the work proposed for Phase III.

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 2 by the NCHRP, the research team will be required to meet in person with the NCHRP project panel to discuss the interim report. Work on Phase III of the project will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP. Phase II shall be limited to $450,000.

PHASE III—Development of Final Products

Task 12. Develop the draft guide according to the approved Interim Report No. 2. Submit the draft guide for NCHRP approval no later than 3 months after approval of Phase II.

Task 13. After NCHRP approval of the draft guide and tools, plan and conduct a workshop with 15 representatives of owners and other stakeholders to review the draft guide and tools. Revise the draft guide, tools, and workshop materials taking into account feedback gathered during the workshop no later than 6 months after approval of Phase II.

Note: The costs for the workshop, including invitational travel for at least 15 attendees (not including members of the research team), should be included in the detailed budget for the research. For the purpose of estimating these costs, assume that the workshop will be held at a TRB facility (Keck Center in Washington, DC, or the Beckman Center in Irvine, CA). NCHRP will cover costs associated with NCHRP panel member travel. Catering services for all participants including panel members should be included in the detailed budget for the research.

Task 14.  Prepare final deliverables including:

1.  A conduct of research report that documents the entire research effort;

2.  The guide and tool(s) for decision-makers for use in estimating work zone intrusion likelihood;

3.  A PowerPoint presentation including speaker notes covering efforts conducted under this project suitable for conference presentation and posting on the project website; and

4.  A technical memorandum “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” as a standalone document (see Special Note K).

Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, the remaining 3 months shall be for NCHRP review and comment and for research agency preparation of the final deliverables. Phase III shall be limited to $90,000.

SPECIAL NOTES

A. The research team should anticipate making presentations to appropriate technical committees at two annual meetings of the AASHTO Committee on Design.

B. To ensure that data produced under this project are accessible, a data archiving and sharing plan shall be prepared by the agency performing the research. The plan must be submitted with Task 4 and shall include a description of expected activities, schedules, limitations, milestones, and required resources. Researchers should describe briefly the expected schedule for data production and archiving in the NCHRP permanent repository, the format of the final dataset, the documentation to be provided, and whether or not any analytic tools and/or results also will be provided. The plan must include a description of actions planned to ensure quality. Moreover, the plan must specify the resources required to archive and distribute the data expected to be obtained in the course of performing the research. In general, public release of data will not occur before full review and approval by the NCHRP project panel.

• The data archiving and sharing plan must include the following sections:
• Background and significance.
• Expected data formats.
• Description of data archiving and quality assurance plan.
• Description of data sharing plan.
• Schedule for data archiving and public release of data.
• Milestones for the implementation of the plan.
• Resources and budget.

C. 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.

D. Proposals must be submitted as a single PDF file with a maximum file size of 10 MB. The PDF must be formatted for standard 8 ½” 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.

E. 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.

F. 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/6587. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.

G. 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.

H. 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.

I. 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.

J. 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.

K. 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

L. 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.

M. 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.