ATTENTION PROPOSERS: A request for proposals for BTSCRP Project BTS-42 was originally released on December 16, 2024; no award was made. The purpose of this Research Project Statement is to initiate a new competition for this project. This Research Project Statement has been modified from the original statement. 

BACKGROUND 

Automated traffic enforcement technology is widely used as a supplement to law enforcement officers. Deployment of automated enforcement in the United States has increased in recent years for a number of reasons, including improved deterrence of targeted traffic violations, societal questioning of the use of law enforcement officers for routine traffic enforcement, and increasing officer vacancy rates in many law enforcement agencies. Despite widespread and growing use of automated enforcement and reported safety benefits, a number of questions are routinely raised. 

• How effective are different types of automated traffic enforcement in the United States, and how widely are they accepted? 

• How can automated traffic enforcement programs best be designed, implemented, and managed to (1) inspire confidence and trust and (2) increase compliance with traffic safety laws? 

• What program approaches and program architecture are best suited to address (1) the perception that automated traffic enforcement is used primarily to generate revenue; (2) the belief by some that privacy infringements outweigh documented safety benefits; and (3) concerns that certain communities are overrepresented and overburdened by this traffic enforcement strategy? 

Answering such questions would help state highway safety offices (SHSOs), policymakers, and other stakeholders shape traffic safety laws and public policy on the use of automated traffic enforcement. To the extent possible, guidelines developed through this project shall be relevant to current and future applications of automated traffic enforcement, including (1) various types of violations targeted, and (2) various technologies deployed. 

OBJECTIVE 

The objective of this research is to develop guidelines for (1) authorizing, implementing, and operating automated traffic enforcement programs that inspire confidence and trust and (2) assessing public opinion and concerns regarding automated traffic enforcement by jurisdictions using, or considering the use of, this technology. 

RESEARCH PLAN 

Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. The BTSCRP 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 research plan should (1) include a kick-off teleconference with the research team and BTSCRP convened within 1 month of the contract’s execution; (2) address how the proposer intends to satisfy the project objective; (3) be divided logically into detailed tasks necessary to fulfill the research objective and include appropriate milestones and interim deliverables; and (4) incorporate opportunities for the project panel to review, comment on, and approve milestone deliverables. 

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

PHASE I 

Task 1. Review and synthesize literature and existing information. Materials should be drawn from a variety of published and unpublished sources regarding (1) the public’s and other stakeholders’ concerns about trust, support, and acceptance of various forms of automated traffic enforcement and (2) safety outcomes associated with the use of various forms of automated traffic enforcement. This effort should focus on domestic information and may consider relevant international information. 

Task 2. Conduct a survey targeting law enforcement agencies, transportation agencies, and school districts with existing or terminated automated traffic enforcement programs to collect information regarding (1) the authority to conduct automated traffic enforcement; (2) the design of automated traffic enforcement systems; (3) public concerns and acceptance; (4) efforts used to gauge public concerns and acceptance; (5) strategies employed to address concerns and improve public trust and acceptance; and (6) effectiveness of the programs with respect to changes in the targeted violations, crashes, and injury severity. Survey results will be used to identify candidates for interviews and case studies to be conducted under Phase II. Proposed sample sizes and sampling methodology should be provided.  

Task 3. Prepare an interim report that documents the work completed in Tasks 1 and 2. Update the work proposed for Phase II.

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 1 by the BTSCRP, the research team will be required to meet via videoconference with the BTSCRP project panel to discuss the interim report. Work on Phase II of the project will not begin until authorized by the BTSCRP. 

PHASE II 

Task 4. Conduct interviews and case studies of lessons learned from BTSCRP-approved communities with (1) longstanding automated traffic enforcement programs, (2) recently implemented or piloted programs, and (3) programs that have been terminated due to sunset provisions or other reasons. Interviews should span a broad range of stakeholders in each community, including automated traffic enforcement program operators, community-based organizations, and policymakers. 

Task 5. Draft guidelines and outreach materials for use by SHSO, policy makers, law enforcement agencies, departments of transportation, and other organizations responsible for (1) planning, implementing, and managing automated traffic enforcement programs and (2) assessing public opinions and concerns regarding automated traffic enforcement.  

Task 6. Make all preparations for a workshop that will include at least 15 diverse representatives of SHSOs, law enforcement agencies, departments of transportation and other organizations to (1) present the proposed guidelines outreach materials developed in Task 5 and (2) collect participant feedback. At a minimum, workshop preparations shall include issuing invitations to BTSCRP-approved participants and preparing a final list of attendees; providing travel support for workshop attendees (other than panel members and BSTCRP staff); providing catering services for all participants, including panel members; preparing name tags for all participants; and preparing PowerPoint presentations and any handouts. 

Task 7. Prepare an interim report that documents the work completed in Tasks 4 through 6. Update the work proposed for Phase III.

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 2 by the BTSCRP, the research team will be required to meet in-person with the BTSCRP project panel to discuss the interim report. Work on Phase III of the project will not begin until authorized by the BTSCRP. 

PHASE III 

Task 8. Conduct the workshop; revise the draft guidelines and outreach materials based on feedback gathered during the workshop. 

Note: Costs for the workshop, including invitational travel for at least 15 attendees (not including members of the research team), should be included in the detailed budget for the research. For the purpose of estimating these costs, assume that the workshop will be held at a TRB facility (the Beckman Center in Irvine, CA, or the Keck Center in Washington, DC). The BTSCRP will cover costs associated with BTSCRP panel member travel. Catering services for all participants, including panel members, should be included in the detailed budget for the research. 

Task 9. Final deliverables should include (1) guidelines; (2) a final research report documenting the entire research effort and findings; (3) prioritized recommendations for future research; (4) presentation material; and (5) a technical memorandum on implementation (see Special Note J).

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

SPECIAL NOTES 

A. Revisions to the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs are highlighted in yellow within that document.

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 Subawardees. The proposer recommended by the project panel will be required to submit an Investigator Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form as a prerequisite for subaward 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/7140. 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 BTSCRP 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; and, if relevant, (5) the adequacy of the facilities. A recommendation by the project panel is not a guarantee of a subaward. 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 subaward negotiations continue.

G. Copyrights - All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and photographic images, and other information prepared under the subaward and the copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academy of Sciences. The subawardee and lower-tier subawardees 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 subawardee and lower-tier subawardees will not be allowed to sell the project material without prior approval by the National Academy of Sciences. By signing a subaward with the National Academy of Sciences, subawardees accept legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist in work done for TRB. Subawardees 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 Subawardees.

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 Subawardees 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 selected proposers are considered subawards to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB. TRB Cooperative Research Program subawards 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) or audited indirect rates shall be subject to a maximum allowable indirect rate of 15% of Modified Total Direct Costs (de minimis rate). Modified Total Direct Costs include all salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each lower-tier subaward. 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 in excess of $50,000.

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.

K. 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.

L. 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.