BACKGROUND
Alternative intersection and interchange (A.I.I.) designs initially emerged as a way to improve safety and operations while reducing project costs and impacts, with the potential to enhance facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Early consideration and implementation by agencies were supported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Alternative Intersections/Interchanges Informational Report and a series of informational guides published since 2014. More recently, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) released an annotated outline for an updated informational report, and FHWA published a new guide focused on pedestrian and bicyclist safety at alternative intersections. Additionally, recent NCHRP reports provide detailed guidance on roundabouts, multimodal safety at alternative intersections, and intersection control evaluation (see Special Note A).
Research is needed to develop a guide on several widely adopted intersection types, reflecting the growing knowledge and experience from successful implementations by many DOTs. The guide also will focus on expanding the toolbox of A.I.I. types and options to help DOTs enhance multimodal transportation safety and operational efficiency.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this research is to develop a guide to support state DOTs and other transportation agencies in considering A.I.I.s in their project planning and development process. The guide will consist of two parts:
- Part I will provide comprehensive information on U-turn-based intersections, covering key issues related to planning, implementation, operation, and maintenance; and
- Part II will provide an expanded resource on A.I.I.s, focusing on the efficacy of underutilized, emerging, or new concepts, as well as their variations.
To achieve the research objective, the research team shall, at a minimum, consider the following key elements:
- Identification and evaluation of existing and emerging alternative design concepts and treatments in the United States and internationally;
- Review of research and practices that complement the objectives and address gaps in previous guides (see Special Note A);
- Development of criteria for applying appropriate treatments and design features based on context (e.g., traffic data, land use and access, expected users, roadway data, speed, flexibility);
- Consideration of all modes of transportation and users of all ages and abilities;
- Preparation of standardized definitions of terms; and
- Harmonization with applicable standards and guidelines.
RESEARCH PLAN
Proposers are asked to develop and present a detailed research approach for accomplishing the project objective. The work proposed must be divided into tasks organized within three research phases: a planning phase, an execution phase, and a guide development phase. Proposers must describe the work proposed in each task. The sequencing of tasks and deliverables (such as technical memorandums or summary reports) shall be structured for delivery in quarterly progress report submissions.
Proposers are expected to present a research plan that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and contract time. Proposals shall present the proposer’s current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach for meeting the research objective.
To achieve the objective of this research, at minimum, the proposed tasks should include:
- Initial Research and Analysis:
- Review existing literature, resources, and published practices to establish a foundational understanding of A.I.I. designs;
- Gather and incorporate insights from practitioners to enhance the guide’s relevance and practical applicability;
- Identify and address specific knowledge gaps;
- Use a systematic process of vetting and review to select A.I.I. designs for a minimum of 20 emerging and underutilized alternative design concepts, based on the latest knowledge, practices, and lessons learned.
- Guide Development – Part I:
- Propose a prioritized list of specific research topics to support the guide development;
- Prepare an annotated description of the proposed guide for NCHRP approval;
- Carry out the research and develop a comprehensive guide on U-turn-based intersections, covering planning, implementation, operation, and maintenance.
- Guide Development – Part II:
- Create a template to show the considerations, e.g., analysis, design, operation, evaluation, etc., that will be discussed in each A.I.I. design concept, balancing breadth and depth;
- Develop an expanded resource on A.I.I.s that includes a high-level overview of A.I.I. design concepts and how to contrast and compare various A.I.I.s, along with approximately two to 10 pages of detailed content for each of the 20 selected alternative design concepts.
- Workshop
- After NCHRP approval of the draft guide, plan and conduct an in-person workshop to debrief the proposed guide and solicit additional feedback from the selected invitational attendees and NCHRP.
Note: The proposer shall anticipate a 1.5-day workshop. The costs for the workshop, including travel for 15 invited attendees, should be included in the detailed budget for the research. For budgeting purposes, assume that the workshop will be held at the NAS facilities in Washington, DC, or Irvine, CA. TRB will cover costs associated with the meeting space and NCHRP panel member travel. Catering services for all participants, including panel members, should be included in the detailed budget for the research.
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 6 weeks of the contract’s execution date, (2) two web-enabled teleconferences interim report review meetings, and (3) web-enabled teleconferences tied to panel review and NCHRP approval of other deliverables.
Note: 1-month shall be reserved for review of each interim report. NCHRP approval is required to advance to the next phase.
Note: The research plan may include additional deliverables and additional panel meetings via teleconference.
The final deliverables shall include:
- A guide on alternative intersections and interchanges;
- A conduct of research report with an executive summary that documents the entire research effort;
- A technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note K); and
- A PowerPoint presentation with speaker notes that summarizes the project and intersection types, clearly illustrating how the research can be applied to a broader audience.
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 proposer may refer to the following documents:
The proposer should avoid redundancies from previous work presented in the documents listed above and focus on new data and details for the underutilized, emerging, and variations of the A.I.I.s, supported by quantitative analyses.
B. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs were revised in May 2023. Please take note of the new and revised text which is highlighted in yellow.
C. 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 40 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.
D. 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.
E. 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/7077. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.
F. 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.
G. 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.
H. 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.
I. 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.
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 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.
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 Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs.
N. 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.
