BACKGROUND

As agencies seek to improve transportation safety and mobility, effectively operating transportation facilities and networks is critically important. There are dozens of Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) strategies that a facility or network could use. Knowing which TSMO strategies are more likely to be effective at addressing safety and operations issues enables agencies and practitioners to make data-driven decisions to effectively use limited funding. 

The evaluation of TSMO strategies is often complicated by unique characteristics of TSMO strategies, such as deployment of two or more strategies at once, intermittent or flexible use based on prevailing conditions, and widespread effects across a network. Access to better evaluation methods will support agencies in assessing their own use of TSMO strategies. A lack of a central repository that enables sharing of strategy effectiveness data and information impedes the efficiency of agencies and their decision-making for more effective and efficient investments in TSMO strategies. 

Research is needed to help state departments of transportation (DOTs) develop tools to evaluate TSMO strategies, compile results, and make them available to practitioners.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this project are (1) to develop evaluation methods to assess the effectiveness of TSMO strategies and (2) to create a web-based central repository to share information, data, and evaluation methods and results for DOTs and other agencies. 

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

RESEARCH PLAN

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 objectives. 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 objectives. The work proposed must be divided into tasks and/or phases. Proposers must describe the work proposed in each phase and task in detail.

The research plan should build in appropriate checkpoints with the NCHRP project panel including, at a minimum, (1) a kick-off teleconference meeting to be held within 1 month of the contract’s execution date and (2) at least one face-to-face interim deliverable review meeting and web-enabled teleconferences tied to panel review and/or NCHRP approval of interim deliverables, including the expenses in the budget. The cost of teleconferences, in-person meeting venue, and NCHRP panel member travel will be paid by the NCHRP.

PHASE I

Task 1. Conduct research review of practices and needs.

1. Conduct a comprehensive review of agencies and industry practices that involve evaluating TSMO strategies. The research shall include published and unpublished documents and reports that cover the effectiveness of practices, challenges, evaluations done to date, and measures used.
2.  Review the effectiveness, ease of use, and lessons learned from Tool for Operations Benefit Cost Analysis (TOPS-BC), ITS Map | ITS Deployment Evaluation, Transportation Operation Manual (TOM) and similar tools and summarize the key characteristics desired for a TSMO strategy repository.
3. Identify practitioners and propose a plan to leverage expertise and engage practitioners from Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS-A), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Committee on Transportation System Operations (CTSO), Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) TSMO Council, Transportation Research Board (TRB) or AASHTO regional TSMO committees, and others. The engagement plan and list of practitioners shall be approved by the NCHRP before the start of Task 3.
4. Research evaluation methods (including relevant datasets, formulas, and models) and performance metrics that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of TSMO strategies.

Task 2. Develop evaluation methods based on the research in Task 1.

1. Document the technical and associated issues, major concepts, current practices, examples highlighting lessons learned, and checklists of steps and issues to consider on evaluation methods (existing and newly developed by this project). Identify a comprehensive list of TSMO strategies to include in the Technical Report (Task 6) and ultimately for the repository (Task 7).
2. Develop and recommend methods and performance metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of TSMO strategies. 
3. Recommend standard data and data structure for comparison of TSMO strategies.
4. Propose a wireframe/architecture for the repository including:

• • content,
  • inputs and outputs,
  • data elements that enable sorting, searching, and grouping by key characteristics,
  • data archiving and sharing plan,
  • fields for strategy types to enable synthesis of multiple entries, and
  • ability to upload new entries by users in the future using standardized formats.

Task 3. Using information gathered in Task 2.1, develop an annotated outline to serve as the basis for the Technical Report to be developed in Task 6. The Technical Report shall address the objectives of the project and include a summary of evaluation matrices containing TSMO strategies, and available and recommended data and measures. The annotated outline will provide the foundation, context, and framework for the content of the Technical Report.

Task 4. Organize virtual meeting(s) with the project panel and the identified practitioners to review and obtain feedback on the findings of Tasks 2 and 3. The meeting(s) will also be used to discuss the proposed design and content of the repository. The draft annotated outline will be revised based on feedback from the practitioner and project panel meeting(s). A revised annotated outline will be submitted for approval prior to beginning to develop the Technical Report in Task 6.

Task 5. Prepare Interim Report No. 1 that documents Tasks 1 through 4, and provides an updated and refined work plan for the remainder of the research no later than 10 months after contract award. The updated plan must describe the process and rationale for the work proposed for Phase II.

PHASE II

Task 6. Develop the draft Technical Report that reflects the final version of the annotated outline in Task 4.

Task 7. Develop a TSMO strategy repository.

1. Develop an updatable web-based central repository.
2. Populate the repository with the collection of TSMO strategy evaluations and use-cases. The research team shall screen the contents of the repository for technical integrity.

Task 8. Develop a presentation with speaker notes reflecting the Technical Report developed in Task 6 and the repository in Task 7. The presentation shall specify the research purpose, objectives, key issues addressed, research products developed, benefit or value of the report, and an overview of the repository and how it can be used. Panel review comments shall be reflected in the final version of the presentation.

Task 9. Review implementation considerations.

1. Recommend a roadmap for implementation and future updating of data to keep the use-case database updated.
2. Prepare domain specific primers on the TSMO strategy repository for executives, information technology, intelligent transportation system, and operation and maintenance staff.
3. Develop a plan on how the repository could evolve into a decision-support tool that provides recommendations of strategies to users based on user input.

Task 10. Prepare final deliverables, including (1) a final report that documents the entire research effort, (2) the Technical Report, (3) the web-based repository, and (4) a stand-alone technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note J).

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/7055. 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.