Many state departments of transportation (DOTs) and other agencies use warrants to define the need for roadway lighting. In the United States, lighting warrants are found in the AASHTO Roadway Lighting Design Guide (RLDG), while the primary Canadian resource is the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Guide for the Design of Roadway Lighting. Although the AASHTO RLDG is currently in its seventh edition, the warranting system included within the RLDG has not changed significantly from its development in the early 1980s. Since then, there has been recent development of active safety systems in vehicles, solid-state lighting (SSL), and the implementation of the use of crash modification factors (CMFs) in roadway safety analysis.
Currently, the RLDG does not address safety-based alternatives to roadway lighting (e.g., retroreflective pavement marking and roadside delineators) or address the cost/benefit of roadway lighting as a safety measure as compared to other safety alternatives, resulting in inconsistency as to where and when roadway lighting is applied. Further, there is a growing concern to balance the safety benefits of roadway lighting while aiming to reduce potential environmental impacts, such as energy use and impacts to wildlife.
To assist state DOTs with the identification and selection of appropriate roadway lighting applications, research is needed to develop updated warrants that provide consistency with respect to how roadway lighting is applied as a safety countermeasure.
The objective of this research is to (1) develop updated lighting warrants that consider the latest lighting and traffic engineering practices with an emphasis on safety and (2) evaluate the justification for lighting considering alternative safety treatments, environmental factors, and safety impacts on new lighting technologies and vehicle technologies.
Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following 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 and Data Collection
Task 1. Conduct a literature review of relevant research related to warrants for roadway lighting. The review shall include published and unpublished research conducted through the NCHRP; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); and other national, international, state, and pooled-fund sponsored research.
Task 2. Propose a methodical approach (e.g., surveys, targeted interviews, focus groups, and other appropriate methods and/or tools) to collect information and current state-of-practice from state DOTs, practitioners, and relevant stakeholders as it relates to warrants for roadway lighting.
Note: A Task Report for Task 2 is to be submitted for NCHRP review and approval before Task 3 can begin.
Task 3. Execute the approved Task 2 methodology. Synthesize the results to prioritize knowledge gaps of warrants for roadway lighting. These knowledge gaps should be addressed in this research or in the recommended future research as budget permits.
Task 4. Identify existing sections of the RLDG that the research results may influence or may be affected by the research results, including an update of current glossary of standard terminologies and applications.
Task 5. Propose a preliminary framework to achieve the research objective to be fully developed in Phase II. At a minimum, the proposed framework shall address the following:
- Identify types of roadway segments, intersections, and interchanges for different geometric, environmental, and operational conditions for lighting warrants. Consider different scenarios including:
- Bike/pedestrian paths adjacent to roadways;
- Activity-based demands from community requests (i.e., sport stadiums, community centers, etc.); and
- Different land use types (i.e., urban-core, urban, suburban, rural, etc.).
- Investigate existing CMFs when determining lighting warrants;
- Evaluate continuous, partial, intersection-based, and delineation lighting conditions as they relate to warrants;
- List the effects of pedestrian activities, traffic volume, and posted speed limits/operating speed; and
- Examine the effects of the following as they relate to justification for lighting after warrants are determined including:
- The cost/benefit of roadway lighting as a safety measure as compared to other safety alternatives;
- Lighting controls and modern vehicle technology; and
- Lighting as it relates to environmental factors (i.e., flora/fauna, dark skies, light trespass, etc.).
Task 6. Develop resources from the findings of Task 3 to highlight potential implementation requirements, procedures (including quality assurance (QA)), strategies, and challenges as it relates to light-emitting diode (LED) applications in traffic control devices.
Task 7. Prepare Interim Report No. 1 that documents Tasks 1 through 6 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. The updated 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 in-person with the NCHRP project panel to discuss the interim report. Whether in-person in Washington, DC, or online, NCHRP will host the meeting and be responsible for any panel member costs to attend meeting. Work on Task 8 will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP.
PHASE II – AASHTO Deliverable Development
Task 8. Execute the approved Task 5 framework according to the approved Interim Report No. 1.
Task 9. Prepare draft language for consideration by AASHTO in the next update of the AASHTO RLDG, hereafter called the AASHTO Deliverable, supported by examples. The AASHTO Deliverable should be suitable for easy adoption as an appendix to the AASHTO RLDG.
Task 10. Prepare Interim Report No. 2 that documents Tasks 8 and 9 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the project. This report should include examples of materials and resources developed in Task 6 to be incorporated into the contractor’s final research report. 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 with the NCHRP project panel to discuss the interim report, if necessary. Work on Task 11 will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP.
PHASE III – Final Products
Task 11. Present AASHTO Deliverable to the AASHTO Joint Technical Committee on Roadway Lighting for comments and propose any revisions to NCHRP. Revise the AASHTO Deliverable considering the NCHRP’s review comments.
Task 12. Prepare a final deliverable that documents the entire research effort. Final deliverables should include, at a minimum (1) the AASHTO Deliverable; (2) prioritized recommendations for future research; (3) presentation material and resources; and (4) technical memorandum on implementation (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.
A. NCHRP wishes to award the contract for NCHRP Project 05-26 for a fixed price of $350,000; this amount will not be subject to any adjustment by reason of the contractor’s cost experience in the performance of the contract. In addition to providing a detailed budget, the proposer should provide a proposed schedule of project milestones, deliverables, and progress payments that is tied to the detailed budget and schedule.
B. The proposer will develop the research plan that expands from active and conducted research including: (1) NCHRP Report 152: Warrants for Highway Lighting; (2) NCHRP Synthesis 575: Lighting Practices for Isolated Rural Intersections; (3) NCHRP Project 05-19, “Guidelines for Roadway Lighting Based on Safety Benefits and Costs;” (4) NCHRP Project 05-25, “Guide to the Contextual Application of Overhead Lighting on Highways;” (5) NCHRP Project 05-27, “Practitioners’ Guide for Lighting at Innovative Intersections/Interchanges, including Roundabouts;” and (6) FHWA Lighting Handbook.
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/6766. 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 this section 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 Instruction for Proposers.