BACKGROUND
Our highway system now supports more uses than ever before, creating the need to balance them all within the limited space of the roadways. While the increase in types of use the roadways supports is beneficial to the health, economy, and resiliency of the transportation network, it also creates a substantial challenge to meet the needs of all roadway users.
Currently, a typical way to decide how to build a multimodal facility is to use multiple American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publications focused on individual modes of travel. As several of these are independent documents focused on specific modes, there is an opportunity to review how these documents might more effectively inform decision makers in a more integrated approach.
Furthermore, given the timing of the various design manual updates can lead to missed opportunities for the coordination of common elements in each document. Streamlined guidance at the national level may help avoid future repetitive updates that take years of overhaul, dedicated staff time, and financial investment.
Current and forthcoming AASHTO publications (e.g., A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets; Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities) include new planning and design concepts for motorized and nonmotorized users on streets and highways. To support these publications, there is a need for a comprehensive approach to guidance and training material that would give planners and designers direction on developing a holistic process to choose a multimodal facility in one consolidated document.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project is to produce a roadmap to establish an integrated selection process for multimodal facilities for developing transportation infrastructure projects.
This research would suggest strategies directly correlated with AASHTO strategic safety plans and initiatives to reduce serious injuries and fatalities while planning and designing safer roadways for all and streamlining and strengthening decision-making for multimodal facility selection.
The outcome of this research will be a roadmap to establish an integrated selection process for multimodal facilities using all relevant AASHTO and related design guidance documents. Using this roadmap should enhance the safety and mobility of the traveling public across all modes and aid planning and design practitioners by removing silos when considering all roadway users in developing transportation infrastructure projects.
Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks.
RESEARCH PLAN
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 work proposed must be divided into tasks and/or phases. Proposers must describe the work proposed in each phase and task in detail.
At minimum, the proposed tasks should include:
- Review, identify, and synthesize current AASHTO, United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), state DOT, and Transportation Research Board (TRB) publications, resolutions, policies, requirements, guidance, initiatives, best practices, and regulations relevant to facility selection decision-making.
- Evaluate and document existing approaches to an integrated selection process for multimodal facilities, including opportunities to consolidate or better align relevant AASHTO publications and resolutions as appropriate.
- Propose a roadmap to streamline the selection process of appropriate multimodal facility types based on context and performance.
- Explore and document the level of effort, resource needs, implementation challenges and opportunities, and other potential impacts for the recommended framework.
- Develop an implementation plan of the framework, including strategies for future updates to AASHTO publications, training options, and research needs for TRB/NCHRP.
The research plan should build in appropriate checkpoints with the NCHRP project panel, including at a minimum (1) a kickoff 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 teleconferences tied to panel review and/or NCHRP approval of interim deliverables.
The research plan will describe appropriate deliverables that include the following (which also represent key project milestones):
- An interim report and panel meeting. The interim report should include the analyses and results of completed tasks, a plan for the remaining tasks, and a detailed outline of the final research product(s). The panel meeting will take place in Washington, DC, after the panel review of the interim report. The interim report and panel meeting should occur after the expenditure of about 40 to 50 percent of the project budget. No further work is allowed until the interim report is approved by the NCHRP.
- Final deliverables. The final deliverables should include a useful resource for practitioners and stakeholders of transportation and planning agencies, supplemented by a research report that documents the research process.
- A technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note J).
- A slide deck that presents the research findings and conclusions that can be used in webinars.
Note: The research plan may include additional deliverables and additional panel meetings via teleconference.
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.
SPECIAL NOTES
A. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs were revised in May 2024. 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 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.
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/7043 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. The text of the final deliverable is expected to be publication-ready when it is submitted. It is strongly recommended that the research team include the expertise of a technical editor as early in the project timeline as possible. See Appendix F of the Procedural Manual for Contractors Conducting Research in the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Program for technical editing standards expected in final deliverables.
I. 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.
J. 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
K. 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.
L. 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.
M. The National Academies have an ethical and legal obligation to provide proper attribution whenever material from other sources is included in its reports, online postings, and other publications and products. TRB will review all Cooperative Research Programs draft final deliverables using the software iThenticate for potential plagiarism. If plagiarized text appears in the draft final deliverable, the research team will be required to make revisions and the opportunity to submit future proposals may be affected.
