BACKGROUND

The Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 2nd ed., published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 2021, is a foundational resource for planning, designing, and operating sidewalks, crosswalks, shared-use paths, etc. But pedestrian infrastructure planning and design practices are rapidly evolving as practitioners gain a deeper understanding of user needs and the transportation industry focuses more closely on the safety of vulnerable road users with support from many recently updated national and local policies. This trend necessitates continuous updates to the current guide to ensure information remains current, effective, and reflective of best practices.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) initiatives such as Safe System Approach, Complete Streets, and Vision Zero emphasize creating inclusive and safe environments for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders. Although the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted over 30 years ago, efforts to accommodate pedestrians of all ages and abilities are ongoing. Recent research and technological advancements have improved our understanding of how to make pedestrian facilities more hospitable, comfortable, and usable.

Additionally, several federal regulations, including the Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) and the 11th edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) impact pedestrian facility design and operation substantially. Information from these sources needs to be incorporated and aligned with other AASHTO guides such as the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. This alignment will ensure consistency across national guidelines and support the development of pedestrian facilities that are safe, accessible, and meet the evolving needs of all users in accordance with current trends and regulatory changes.

Research is needed to identify and document new content from recent studies and proven approaches in a single document to support practitioners from state departments of transportation (DOTs) and other agencies, as well as transportation professionals from industry and academia, to incorporate these updates into pedestrian facility planning, design, and operational practices.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to investigate and promote modern, proven approaches and provide implementable guidelines for planning, designing, and operating pedestrian facilities. 

The research will focus on enhancing pedestrian safety, accessibility, and mobility in various contexts. Ultimately, this research seeks to develop a comprehensive resource document that will support practitioners in creating pedestrian-friendly spaces for people of all ages and abilities. The research shall include at least the following:

• State-of-the-industry concepts, methods, and research to enhance pedestrian safety performance, network connectivity, and equity 
• Context-sensitive approaches for evaluating pedestrian needs and selecting appropriate facilities that promote the pedestrian mode for all ages and abilities
• Clear, actionable procedures to assist practitioners in planning, designing, and operating pedestrian facilities
• Alignment with national regulations to support the development of pedestrian facilities that are safe, ADA-compliant, and responsive to evolving needs
• Consistent, high-quality, and informative graphics that enhance readability and make the deliverables user-friendly

Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks.

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. Proposers' research plans should illustrate their understanding of how to successfully develop a state-of-the-art guide for practitioners. Proposers should describe how they will manage comments and responses between drafts of the deliverables. 

It is estimated that there will be four project phases, with an interim report and updated research plan due after Phases I, II, and III. One month shall be reserved for review and NCHRP approval of each interim report, unless specified otherwise. A virtual interim meeting shall follow the submission of the first and third interim reports, and an in-person meeting shall follow the second interim report. The research team shall not proceed to future phases without NCHRP approval. An estimation of the duration for each phase is presented below. However, proposers may resequence the timeline according to their best thinking.

The research will cover a wide range of topics relevant to the development, operation, and maintenance of pedestrian facilities. Given the multitude of potential topics for enhancement or addition, the proposer shall identify and prioritize these subjects (see Special Note A). This project will also require substantial effort on the part of the panel to review and comment on the content of the deliverables. To ensure predictability for the panel to review the deliverables, the sequencing of tasks and deliverables shall be structured for delivery in quarterly progress report submissions, with a 3-year duration broken into 12 3-month quarters. 

PHASE I – Planning

Phase I of the project shall focus on establishing foundational elements of the research plan, estimated to last at least two project quarters. During this phase, the research team shall:

• Develop a structured plan for gathering panel input at key stages of the project
• Conduct a project kickoff meeting to discuss potential topics with the panel for the literature review and a best practices assessment
• Perform a thorough evaluation of the existing guide to identify its strengths and weaknesses and a comprehensive literature and best practices review
  
• Identify content gaps and explore best practices by analyzing state DOT and local agency manuals, as well as gathering insights from practitioners through surveys, interviews, or focus groups

Based on Phase I research, the research team will prepare a draft of the resource document to be developed in Phase II of the project. The research results contained in the draft resource document may be considered by AASHTO for the next update of the Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (hereafter called AASHTO Deliverable).

The research team shall submit a draft annotated outline for the AASHTO Deliverable to demonstrate a thorough understanding of its content and development process, articulate identified gaps, and outline topics to be explored.

Proposers shall clearly present their intended schedule of deliverables. The Phase I deliverables shall include at a minimum (1) the Amplified Research Plan, (2) a kickoff meeting (with summary notes), (3) results of the existing guide review, (4) results of the literature and proven approaches reviews, (5) an annotated outline for the AASHTO Deliverable, and (6) a style guide (see Special Note B).

Note: The NCHRP approved draft annotated outline will be shared with selected AASHTO committees for review and comment. The research team shall revise the annotated outline based on the comments received.

PHASE II – Resource Development

Phase II is estimated to last approximately five quarters. The research team shall develop the first draft of the AASHTO Deliverable based on the approved Phase I interim report. This draft AASHTO Deliverable shall:

• Be written from a pedestrian perspective, with language focused on the needs and capabilities of pedestrians
• Encourage flexibility in application, provide detailed guidelines where possible, and include a set of typical design concepts or graphics to support implementation (hereafter called design typicals)
• Feature high-quality, illustrative graphics in a suitable format

Proposers shall clearly outline their deliverable schedule, including:

• One quarterly report with examples of completed content, including relevant exhibits for NCHRP review (either a section from each proposed chapter or a single complete chapter)
• A virtual meeting following the NCHRP’s review of the quarterly report with example content
• Multiple midcourse checkpoints allowing NCHRP feedback
• Substantially complete portions of content for NCHRP feedback, focusing on new or extensively revised topics

The Phase II interim report shall include at a minimum a first draft of the AASHTO Deliverable supported with design typicals, exhibits, and a bibliography. Two months shall be reserved for review and NCHRP approval of the Phase II interim report.

PHASE III – AASHTO Deliverable Review and Refinement

Phase III is estimated to last approximately three quarters. The research team shall plan and conduct a 2-day workshop with the panel and at least 20 designated AASHTO committee members to review the first draft of the proposed AASHTO Deliverable. The participant list and draft agenda shall be provided to the NCHRP for review and approval. The draft AASHTO Deliverable will be shared with the selected participants before the workshop for review and comment. The collected comments will be shared with the research team before the workshop to process them.

The workshop shall provide participants an overview of the draft guide and engage their expertise through breakout sessions focused on specific subject matter areas, collecting input from practitioners on how to use the AASHTO Deliverable to address pedestrian planning, design, and/or operation in their daily responsibilities.

Note: The costs for the workshop, including invitational travel for 20 attendees and panel travel, should be included in the detailed budget for the research. For the purpose of estimating these costs, assume the workshop will be held at the Keck Center in Washington, DC, or the Beckman Center in Irvine, CA. TRB will cover costs associated with the meeting space at National Academies facilities. 

Following the workshop, the research team shall prepare a summary of the workshop activities, comments received, and actions to be taken. The research team shall then develop a second draft of the AASHTO Deliverable, incorporating the comments on the first draft and the outcomes of the workshop. The second draft shall highlight how practitioners’ inputs have been integrated.

PHASE IV – Final Products 

Phase IV is estimated to be accomplished in two project quarters. Based on the approved Phase III interim report, revise and develop the final (third draft) AASHTO Deliverable with design typicals, WITHOUT document layout/production software (e.g., InDesign). The format for the final AASHTO Deliverable shall be discussed with AASHTO staff.

Final deliverables shall include at a minimum: 

1. A conduct of research report documenting the entire project and describing the deliverables, including future research needs and technical appendices or data as needed 
2. The AASHTO Deliverable 
3. PowerPoint presentation(s) with speaker notes that summarizes the project and deliverables and distinctly illustrates for the audience how the deliverables can be applied in their organization
4. A technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note L), including recommendations to support AASHTO, states, and localities in implementing the research product

Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, the remaining 3 months shall be for NCHRP review and comment and for research team preparation of the final deliverables.

Note: For budgeting purposes, proposers should plan for members of the research team to attend three AASHTO Committee on Design meetings in person to provide informational updates on the project's progress. The first one will be used to discuss the panel-approved annotated outline with AASHTO interested parties.

SPECIAL NOTES

A.  Description of the key items to be considered for developing the AASHTO Deliverable are listed here. Proposers may expand on this list based on their expertise.

• Planning
• Context-based planning
• Pedestrian behavior (for example, route directness and gap acceptance)
• Addressing the full range of users (for example, different mobility devices)
• Systemic safety analysis
• Developing complete and logical networks
• Developing infrastructure mapping and inventories to support pedestrians and all road users
• Analysis methods (such as pedestrian level of traffic stress)
• Pedestrian volume estimation
• Prioritizing project investments
• Distinction between ADA compliance and a fully supportive, functional pedestrian environment
• Design
• Context-based design typicals for sidewalks, crosswalks, shared-use paths, curb ramps, etc.
• Interface between pedestrian space and bicycle/vehicle/transit space
• PROWAG updates and best practices that go above and beyond the ADA
• Crosswalk spacing, design, and enhancement
• Intersections and interchanges
• Technologies that can predict and warn all road users about the potential for conflict
• Shared facilities (such as shared-use paths and shared streets)
• Temporary traffic control
• Operations
• Transportation system management and operations as they apply to pedestrians and all road users
• Work zone operation and detours
• Maintenance considerations at all stages of a project
• Maintenance policies, programs, and best practices

B. The style guide shall establish standards to ensure a consistent, readable, and pedestrian-focused tone throughout the AASHTO Deliverable. The proposer is recommended to follow the AASHTO Publications Style Manual and Process Guide, 3rd ed., and work collaboratively with AASHTO staff to ensure alignment.

The annotated outline is required to reflect practitioners’ needs for practical guidance on planning and design decisions. This is an opportunity to reimagine the structure of the AASHTO Deliverable itself to be user-friendly, informative, and actionable. At a minimum, the annotated outline shall include:

• Chapter and section titles and headings
• Indications of existing information being retained, new content filling gaps, and material being set aside as applicable
• References to technical guides and sources used for each chapter or section
• A preliminary glossary with terms and definitions to be used in the AASHTO Deliverable
• A list of potential exhibits, including updates to existing ones and proposals for new ones

C. 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.

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/7050. 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. 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.

K. 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.

L. 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

M. 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.

N. 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.

O. 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.