BACKGROUND

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all streets, highways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and site roadways open to public travel. Regulatory and warning signs are covered in MUTCD Chapters 2A (Dimensions), 2B (Size of Regulatory Signs), 2C (Size of Warning Signs and Plaques), 6G (Regulatory Sign Design and Size), 6H (Warning Sign Function, Design, and Application), 7B (Design of School Signs), 8B (Sizes of Grade Crossing Signs), 9A (General), 9B (Regulatory Signs), and 9C (Warning Signs and Object Markers). Transportation agencies face challenges with the size of regulatory and warning signs because real-world roadway features do not always clearly match the categories (e.g., conventional, expressway) in the MUTCD tables (e.g., Table 2C-1, Warning Sign and Plaque Sizes). For example, some high-speed roads pass through urban areas without a reduction in speed, which can lead to sign clutter and sign sizes that do not match roadway conditions. These issues can increase costs, create maintenance difficulties, and result in the overuse of larger signs.

Human factors is an applied scientific discipline that tries to enhance the relationship between devices and systems and the people who are meant to use them. As a discipline, human factors approaches system design with the user as its focal point. Human factors research can help address transportation agencies’ challenges with the size of regulatory and warning signs by focusing on how drivers and other road users see and respond to signs. This user-centered approach can provide transportation agencies evidence-based guidance on choosing optimum sign sizes. With this kind of support, states can reduce costs, improve consistency, and make sure regulatory and warning signs are both effective and easy to understand.

Research is needed to incorporate human factors into regulatory and warning signs to help transportation agencies select optimum sign sizes.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to provide guidance for selecting sizes of regulatory and warning signs based on traffic speed and highway context, considering human factors. 

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

TASKS

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 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.

PHASE I – Planning and Method Development

Task 1. Conduct a literature review of relevant research and the current state of the practice for the size of regulatory and warning signs, including existing sign manufacturing practice, text legibility, oversize sign usage, and effectiveness of larger signs. The review shall include published and unpublished research conducted by U.S. and international public- and private-sector organizations. Synthesize the literature review and the current state of the practice to identify knowledge gaps and opportunities related to the size of regulatory and warning signs.

Task 2. Propose a method to achieve the research objective that includes human factors testing.

The method shall consider: 

• Sign sizes that can be used with engineering judgment based on constraints (e.g., budgetary, available space) and context (e.g., urban, rural, single lane)
• Roadway functional classification
• Operating and posted speed
• Conspicuity of larger regulatory and warning signs
• Impact of sign color and contrast

The proposed guidance for sizes of regulatory and warning signs must consider at minimum:

• Language and tables for MUTCD Chapters 2A (Dimensions), 2B (Size of Regulatory Signs), 2C (Size of Warning Signs and Plaques), 6G (Regulatory Sign Design and Size), 6H (Warning Sign Function, Design, and Application), 7B (Design of School Signs), 8B (Sizes of Grade Crossing Signs), 9A (General), 9B (Regulatory Signs), and 9C (Warning Signs and Object Markers)
• Sizes of text and symbols
• Definitions for high speed, low speed, expressway, conventional, urban, rural, single lane, and multilane
• Definitions for roadway context that identify the minimum size selection
• Definitions for the sign classification categories
• The importance of functional classification and speed, including which one takes precedence

Task 3. Prepare an annotated outline for draft language for consideration by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to incorporate the research results in the next update of the MUTCD.

Task 4. Prepare Interim Report No. 1 to document Tasks 1 through 3 and provide an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. 

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 1 by the NCHRP, the research team will be required to meet in person in Washington, DC, with the project panel to discuss the interim report. For budgeting purposes, the meeting venue and travel for the NCHRP panel members to attend the meeting will be paid separately by the NCHRP. Work on Phases II and III of the project will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP.

PHASE II – Method Execution

Task 5. Execute the method developed in Tasks 3 and 4 according to the approved Interim Report No. 1.

Task 6. Prepare Interim Report No. 2 to document Task 5. This interim report shall include an updated work plan for Phase III.

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

PHASE III – Final Deliverables

Task 7.  Prepare draft language for consideration by the FHWA to incorporate the research results in the next update of the MUTCD (hereafter called the MUTCD Deliverable).

Note: The MUTCD Deliverable is due at least 6 months before the subaward end date to allow for review and revisions.

Task 8. Prepare final deliverables, including:

• The MUTCD Deliverable
• A final research report documenting the entire research effort, findings, and guidance for sizes of regulatory and warning signs
• Recommended future research
• A technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” that includes plans for future model deployment (see Special Note L)
• A PowerPoint presentation with speaker notes summarizing the project and clearly illustrating how the results can be applied

Note: The research plan may include additional deliverables as well as additional virtual panel meetings.

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 proposed research team must include individuals with practical experience and demonstrated expertise in transportation human factors research.

B. If the research approach includes human subjects testing, proposers should be aware that contracts will be subject to approval by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). This review may be conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s IRB, but the National Academies will delegate the review to the contracting agency’s IRB if that agency’s process meets all federal requirements for the protection of human subjects.

If an organization cannot use or partner with an external IRB, or if TRB staff believe the project merits extra attention, then TRB staff may ask the National Academies IRB to conduct a review following its normal procedures. The National Academies IRB can be contacted by email at IRB@NAS.EDU. Please review the list of FAQs in Appendix A of the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs. 

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. 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.

F. 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/7210. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.

G. 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.

H. 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; 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.

I. 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.

J. 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.

K. 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.

L. 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

M. If the subawardee 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 subawardee will ensure adequate communication and coordination with their lower-tier subawardees throughout the project.

N. 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.

O. 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.