BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the frontline worker shortage, particularly for operators at public transit agencies. In response, agencies have modified recruitment, hiring, and training processes to attract more candidates, while also focusing on strengthening agency culture, boosting morale, and improving working conditions to retain staff. Although agencies are adjusting practices, rigid work schedules remain a major barrier that hinder workforce retention across the transit industry, limiting agencies’ ability to support employees in balancing operational demands with personal responsibilities.

The APTA Transit Workforce Shortage Report (2023) highlighted undesirable work schedules as a top reason frontline transit workers resigned from transit agencies. The report found that adjusting work schedules is more difficult than altering pay structures, and that altering compensation alone may not be a sufficient means to reduce employee turnover. To further address the problem, TCRP Project J-07/Topic SA-64, “Transit Scheduling and Dispatch Practice that Increase Operator Quality of Life” is identifying current strategies, practices, and outcomes of transit agency efforts to attract and retain operators through changes to schedule design and assignment.

While the previously cited studies identify scheduling solutions to address the transit operator shortage problem, there remains a broad and pressing industry-wide need to explore how changes to work schedules can help improve recruitment and retention of frontline transit workers.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of research is to explore and identify what gaps remain, barriers to adopting more work-centric scheduling, and how pilot or emerging business practices (planning, scheduling, allocation of the work, and labor agreements) affect staffing outcomes. The factors that can potentially improve transit operator job satisfaction by favorable work schedules resulting in enhanced quality of life and potentially increased hiring and retention rates shall be explored.

This research should consider the practices documented in the two studies mentioned earlier. At a minimum, the research plan shall address the following:

• Identify scheduling innovations that have reduced turnover to get a holistic view on work preferences from frontline transit workers.
• Assess the extent that wage rates or pay differentials can address recruitment and retention rates.
• Assess the trade-offs between the costs of improved working conditions, early attrition, and reduced service levels.
• Document business practices from other countries and/or industries with potential benefits applicable to USA agencies (for example, cycling roster, preferential bidding, benefits and privileges related to seniority, etc.).
• Identify measurable factors that technology can digest to improve quality of life or well-being for frontline transit workers.
• Explore examples of successful collaborative agreements between agencies and unions that improved work schedules and morale.
• Identify a key performance indicators (KPI) framework used to monitor the effectiveness of identified best practices. Additionally, identify how outcomes from these implementations are integrated into a closed feedback loop to support continuous system improvement.

RESEARCH PLAN

TCRP is seeking proposers’ insights 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 subaward 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. Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. 

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

• Kick-off meeting to present the amplified research plan to the project panel for discussion and feedback.
• Interim report that includes the analyses and results of completed tasks, an update of the remaining tasks, and detailed outlines of the final research product(s).
• Panel meeting that will take place after the panel review of the interim report. The interim report and panel meeting should occur after the expenditure of no more than 40% of the project budget. Work on subsequent tasks will not begin until TCRP approval of the interim report.
• Final deliverables, including (1) a final report that documents the entire research effort, (2) the Implementation of Research Findings and Products Technical Memorandum, as discussed in Special Note K, and (3) a presentation with detailed presenter notes summarizing the findings of the research for webinars.

Note: The research plan may include additional deliverables and additional panel meetings via teleconferences. 

SPECIAL NOTES

A. The TCRP Project J-07/Topic SA-64, "Transit Scheduling and Dispatch Practice that Increase Operator Quality of Life" final report will be provided to the selected subcontractor to review the results and future research for incorporation into the Amplified Research Plan.

B. 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.

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 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 IV 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 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.

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 on the TCRP Project Panel on Optimizing Work Schedules for Transit Frontline Workers landing page. 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 TCRP 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.

H. 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.

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 Subawardees 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 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.

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.

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.