BACKGROUND 

State highway safety offices (SHSOs) apply funds administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that focus on road user behavior, while state departments of transportation (DOTs) administer funds focused on infrastructure improvements. The Safe System Approach emphasizes multidisciplinary efforts to reduce serious injuries and fatalities. However, due to the differing nature of behavioral and infrastructure countermeasures (e.g., behavioral countermeasures have a range of service lives and implementation timelines), it is not currently possible to compare the effectiveness of both types of countermeasures at a project level when evaluating alternatives. 

The NHTSA’s Countermeasures That Work uses a five-star system to rate behavioral countermeasures on effectiveness. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) maintains the Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse, an online database to report the effectiveness of engineering- and infrastructure-based countermeasures. NCHRP Project 17-60, "Benefit-Cost Methodology for Behavioral Highway Safety Countermeasures," developed a benefit-cost method to comparably assess behavioral and infrastructure countermeasures, though NCHRP 17-60 ultimately focused on developing a benefit-cost analysis framework that did not necessarily allow incorporation of these analyses into infrastructure projects.

Research is needed to develop procedures to quantify the effectiveness of behavioral countermeasures in a way that can be considered in infrastructure project decisions. This would help states implement a more comprehensive approach to assessing the safety impacts of funding decisions. 

OBJECTIVE 

The objective of this research is to develop a guide for quantifying the effectiveness of behavioral countermeasures, expressed as a CMF with supporting documentation. Behavioral countermeasures will be defined based on topic areas listed in the NHTSA’s Countermeasures that Work.

TASKS 

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 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 

Task 1. Review current industry practices for analyzing the effectiveness of behavioral countermeasures to identify promising analytic methods (including inferential statistics and modeling), especially those that can address concerns over regression to the mean and common data limitations in assessments of behavioral change. Surveys should not be used to accomplish this task. 

Task 2. Propose methods for evaluating behavioral countermeasures via a CMF, including scoring metrics (e.g., study design, data, statistical methodology) and context (e.g., temporal, spatial, demographic effects). The outcome should be modeled after the CMF Clearinghouse star quality rating, which indicates the quality of or confidence in the results of the study producing the CMF. As part of this task, the research team shall (1) evaluate the relevance of the CMF rating method outlined in NCHRP Project 17-72 “Update of Crash Modification Factors for the Highway Safety Manual” to behavioral countermeasures and (2) consider changes in effectiveness over time. 

Task 3. Propose a list behavioral countermeasures with existing effectiveness studies, such as those with four or five stars in Countermeasures That Work, as candidates for developing CMFs during Phase II. 

Note: Proposers should provide their initial thoughts regarding:

Behavioral countermeasures that may be good candidates for developing CMFs, and why.

Factors to consider, such as area-wide versus location-specific focus, and spillover effects.

Potential data sources.

The maximum number of CMFs that can be developed within the available budget.  

Task 4. Prepare an annotated outline for the guide to be developed in Phase III. 

Task 5. Prepare Interim Report No. 1, which documents the work completed in Tasks 1 through 4. Update the work proposed for Phase II. The interim report shall include a data archiving and sharing plan. 

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 1 by the BTSCRP, the research team will be required to meet remotely 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 6. Execute the BTSCRP-approved Phase II work plan. 

Task 7. Prepare Interim Report No. 2, which documents the work completed in Task 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 with the BTSCRP project panel in person in Washington, DC, to discuss the interim report. Work on Phase III of the project will not begin until authorized by the BTSCRP. 

PHASE III 

Task 8. Prepare a draft guide. The draft guide shall be submitted at least 6 months prior to the end of the subaward. 

Task 9. Prepare documentation for CMFs developed in Phase II for future consideration by the CMF Clearinghouse. 

Task 10. Develop outreach materials to support practitioners’ understanding and implementation of the research findings. Materials should be applicable to SHSOs and state DOTs. 

Task 11. At a minimum, the final deliverables shall include: 

1. A guide.
2. A conduct of research report that documents the entire research effort and findings.
3. Documentation for CMFs developed in Phase II for consideration by the CMF Clearinghouse.
4. Outreach materials to support practitioners’ understanding and use of the research findings.
5. Prioritized recommendations for future research.
6. A PowerPoint presentation with presenter’s notes summarizing the research findings.
7. A stand-alone technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Important item IV). 

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.

< < < IMPORTANT > > > 

I.      The brochure Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs includes extensive guidance on the preparation of proposals for submission to CRP. Revisions to these instructions are highlighted in yellow within that document.

II.    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/7381. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.

III.   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 Programs for technical editing standards expected in final deliverables.

IV.  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.

V.    The National Academies have an ethical and legal obligation to provide proper attribution whenever material from other sources is included in their 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.