BACKGROUND

In 2022, there were 7,522 pedestrian deaths and 1,105 bicyclist deaths on U.S. roadways, the highest number of pedestrian deaths since 1981 and the highest number of bicyclist deaths since 1975, according to Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). In response to the rise in pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and agencies across the United States have adopted the Safe System approach. As part of this initiative, many agencies have implemented Complete Streets policies and legislation. As implementation continues, best practices for selecting, designing, implementing, and maintaining roadside features and facilities to accommodate nonmotorized and micromobility users are not broadly recognized under a variety of context. Practitioners are seeking guidance on the development of roadway features and facilities to better accommodate nonmotorized and micromobility users across a variety of context classifications, functional classifications, traffic speeds, and traffic volumes. Furthermore, roadside design guides have historically focused on cross-section elements between intersections, but many crashes involving nonmotorized and micromobility users occur at intersections and driveways. 

There is a need to develop a performance-based decision-making framework to select roadside features and facilities in various roadway contexts and provide insight on the effectiveness of new roadside features, facilities, and intersection treatments to address safety concerns of nonmotorized or micromobility users.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to develop a performance-based guide to support state departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation agencies to select roadside features and facilities in various roadway contexts for the safety and comfort of nonmotorized and micromobility users. The guide will focus on quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the safety and comfort of nonmotorized and micromobility road users with considerations for implementation and maintenance of the roadside features and facilities.

 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 a minimum, the proposed tasks should include:

Phase I 

1. Synthesize the range of roadside features and facilities usage (including transition, intersection, and end treatment considerations), and safety and comfort performance evaluation criteria emphasizing nonmotorized and micromobility road users. This synthesis shall be performed through a literature review and survey of the state of practice at state DOTs and localities. Supplemental interviews shall be used to gain insight on life span, life cycle cost, and lessons learned for implementation and maintenance of these roadside features and facilities.
2. Identify gaps in safety and comfort performance evaluation criteria for roadside features and facilities.
3. Develop safety and comfort performance evaluation methods for roadside features and facilities.
4. Identify data sources and metrics that can be used for the performance evaluation.
5. Propose methodologies and analysis framework for the research.
6. Hold virtual session(s) with stakeholder engagement work groups (may include American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO] Technical Committee on Roadside Safety and Technical Committee on Geometric Design members) to gather feedback from the practitioners on the selected research methodology. Stakeholder lists will be approved by the NCHRP.
7. Develop an annotated outline of the proposed guide.
8. Prepare Interim Report No. 1 documenting the results of items 1 through 7 and provide an updated plan for the remainder of the research no later than 10 months after contract award. The updated plan must describe the methodology and rationale for the work proposed for Phases II.

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 1 by the NCHRP, the research team will be required to meet virtually with the NCHRP project panel to discuss the Interim Report No. 1. Work on Phase II of the project will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP. Phase I budget shall not exceed $150,000.

Phase II

1. Execute the Phase II Plan.
2. Develop a draft guide including implementation and maintenance considerations and matrices to summarize the safety and comfort performance for each roadside feature or facility in a variety of contexts (e.g., the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 8th edition, context classifications with varying speeds and traffic volumes) for different roadway users.
3. Prepare Interim Report No. 2 and participate in an in-person panel meeting. The Interim Report No.2 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 No.2. The Interim Report No. 2 and an in-person panel meeting should occur before the Phase II stakeholder engagement work group session(s). No further work is allowed until the Interim Report No. 2 is approved by NCHRP.
4. Hold virtual session(s) with the stakeholder engagement work groups to gather feedback from the practitioners on the draft guide and matrices.
5. Refine the final guide and matrices based on received feedback and the project panel’s input.

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.

Note: The cost of teleconferences, in-person meeting venue, and NCHRP panel member travel will be paid by the NCHRP.

The research plan will describe appropriate deliverables that include the following (which also represent key project milestones):

• Final deliverables. The final deliverables shall include the performance-based guide and a research report that documents the research process.  
• A technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” including hardware improvement strategy for transportation agencies and stakeholder communication plan (see Special Note J).
• A slide deck with presenter’s notes that presents the research findings and conclusions that may be used in webinars.
• Communication materials including two-pager flyers, executive summary, pre-recorded training videos under 20 minutes for the guide.

Note: The research plan may include additional deliverables as well as 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/7073 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.