SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Emissions into The Collaborative Decision Making Process
- Notice Date
- 7/29/2008
- Notice Type
- Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
- NAICS
- 541712
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
- Contracting Office
- The National Academies, Transportation Research Board, Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), 500 Fifth Street NW, Washington, District of Columbia, 20001
- ZIP Code
- 20001
- Solicitation Number
- SHRP2C09
- Archive Date
- 9/24/2008
- Point of Contact
- Stephen Andrle,, Phone: 202-334-2810, Linda Mason,, Phone: 202-334-3241
- E-Mail Address
-
sandrle@nas.edu, lmason@nas.edu
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- SHRP 2 Request for Proposals Focus Area: Capacity Project Number: C09 Project Title: Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Emissions into The Collaborative Decision-Making Process Date Posted: July 29, 2008 SHRP 2 Background To address the challenges of moving people and goods efficiently and safely on the nation's highways, Congress has created the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2). SHRP 2 is a targeted, short-term research program carried out through competitively awarded contracts to qualified researchers in the academic, private, and public sectors. SHRP 2 addresses four strategic focus areas: the role of human behavior in highway safety (Safety); rapid highway renewal (Renewal); improved travel time reliability through congestion reduction (Reliability); and transportation planning that better integrates community, economic, and environmental considerations into new highway capacity (Capacity). Under current legislative provisions, SHRP 2 will receive approximately $150 million with total program duration of 7 years. Additional information about SHRP 2 can be found on the program's Web site at " http://www.trb.org/shrp " www.trb.org/shrp2. Capacity Focus Area The objective of the Capacity focus area is to develop a consistent framework for reaching balanced, collaborative decisions on enhancing transportation capacity and to provide the tools for applying the framework. The research will develop a transportation project evaluation process to help stakeholders balance the need to reduce delays caused by conflicting demands with the need to produce transportation solutions that support community, economic, and environmental goals. The research will also develop a structure for a project's many contributors to share data and knowledge. This will require identifying critical points for decision making in various processes, the data and knowledge required for these decisions, and successful methods of sharing information. Linkage to Other SHRP 2 Projects One of the fundamental products of the SHRP 2 Capacity research program will be a Collaborative Decision Making Framework (CDMF). The objective of this framework is to develop a systems-based, transparent, well-defined framework for consistently reaching collaborative decisions on transportation capacity enhancements. The framework will address about 50 key decision points (KDPs) in six core transportation decision processes: • Systems planning • Pre-program studies (e.g., corridor studies) • Programming • Environmental Review • Design • Permitting A key decision point is one at which approvals and signoffs are required before the process can advance. SHRP 2 Project C01 is developing the framework and the results of other SHRP 2 Capacity projects, including this one, will be integrated into the framework, creating a unified product for users. SHRP 2 Project C02 is developing a performance measurement framework, emphasizing environmental and community measures that inform the collaborative decision-making process. Project C02 will create a web-based library of performance measures that will be linked to the key decision points and will aid in selecting measures appropriate in each. (See Special Note 1) Project Background In the last few years, scientific consensus has strengthened around the fact that the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere is contributing to changes in the earth's climate. While uncertainty remains over the pace and dimensions of the change, a consensus around the need for action has grown among the public and elected officials. In part, this shift has been accelerated by concern over energy security and rising fuel prices. The new political landscape has led many cities, states, and regions to institute policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions. These policies and emerging initiatives have significant implications for the transportation planning process. About 28% of the United States' GHG emissions are from transportation sources. Carbon dioxide emissions from personal vehicles and trucks account for 82% of these emissions and have grown by 28% since 1990. Unlike conventional air pollutants, carbon dioxide emissions are directly tied to the amount of fuel consumed and its carbon intensity. Therefore, emissions reductions can be achieved by increasing the use of low-carbon fuels, improving fuel economy, or reducing total vehicle miles-often called the three legged stool. (A fourth leg is congestion reduction, at certain optimal speeds). These same factors are related to our use of imported oil, so actions taken to reduce GHG emissions may actually produce benefits in both policy areas. The global scale and indirect nature of climate change make it impossible to quantify the damages associated with any individual sources of new emissions, no matter how large. While highway projects might contribute to increased greenhouse gases, the climate impacts of expanding capacity in a particular corridor cannot be effectively determined. Therefore, the traditional approaches such as impact mitigation become more complicated. On the other hand, states implementing greenhouse gas policies have chosen to focus primarily on quantifying emissions impacts and setting emissions-reduction goals. Emerging policies and performance measures have been expressed as reductions in vehicle miles traveled, regional emissions targets, or incentive-based goals. The climatic risks of additional emissions associated with capacity projects must be balanced against the mobility, safety, and economic needs of a community or region. The difficult questions lie in where and how in the transportation planning process the assessments should occur. Project C09 specifically focuses on the state and local collaborative decision-making framework as the context for this work. It will examine strategies to integrate GHG emissions and energy consumption considerations when transportation policy strategies can address both. This project will NOT focus on transportation and air quality modeling in areas where such modeling is a mature practice. Where such modeling is done, the outputs of travel demand models are inputs to EPA's MOBILE 6 or MOVES models, which estimate emissions, including carbon dioxide. The MOVES model represents a substantial potential improvement over MOBILE 6, but its data needs strain the ability of travel demand models to produce inputs at sufficiently fine detail. The SHRP 2 Capacity Technical Coordinating Committee recognizes that improvements to travel demand models are needed to better address GHGs and has assigned that charge to SHRP 2 Project C10. It should not be emphasized in this project. An astute observer might conclude that where rigorous transportation demand modeling, air quality analysis, and energy use analysis are being conducted, most of the pieces are already present to calculate the GHG emissions and energy use of transportation alternatives. A first step in such places might be adding calculations to an already sophisticated process. Not that it can't be improved, but isn't this a first step for many? Recommendations along this line are appropriate for Project C09. However, since SHRP 2 Project C10 will be concerned with improving travel demand models and the interface with air quality models, modeling the quantity of GHGs produced in areas with mature modeling capability should not be emphasized in Project C09. The C10 problem statement is in the SHRP 2 Research Plan, located in the Capacity section of the SHRP 2 website at TRB.org or http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/CapacityResearchPlan.pdf Rural areas or regions where rigorous air quality analysis is not required are a different question. How should the GHG issue be addressed there? It doesn't matter where GHGs are emitted, the global effect is the same. Some states are requiring that the GHG effects of long-range transportation plans be estimated, even if the region is not required to conduct air quality analysis to satisfy the Clean Air Act. This is a very real problem at the moment and is within the scope of this project. This research will be conducted in an environment of uncertainty. Critical policies are currently in flux: The Environmental Protection Agency has announced a proposed rulemaking process to address the issue; states are adopting policies; local governments are adopting targets and goals; and recent fuel price increases are changing driving behavior, at least in the short term. This project should examine ways to incorporate the GHG emission issue into the collaborative decision-making framework based on the current regulatory environment. If the environment changes during the project, we will have to adapt. If it doesn't, this work will contribute to the policy debate. Objectives The objectives of this project are to: (1) Develop a strategy or strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions at relevant key decision points in the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework; (2) identify relevant material already produced by the normal planning process and the gaps that exist for GHG analysis, (3) prepare materials and methods to address the gaps and integrate them into the CDMF; (4) prepare a freestanding Practitioner's Handbook. Accomplishing these objectives will require identifying proactive strategies that can be taken by cities, states, and regions to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector: Identifying what practitioners need to know about greenhouse gases at each stage of the CDMF; identifying the audiences at those key decision points; and identifying the most critical gaps and needs. Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. SHRP 2 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 meet the research objective(s): Task 1: Summarize background conditions, including but not limited to US demographic trends, VMT forecasts, estimates of new lane miles of highway needed in the next 50 years, state and regional GHG targets, forecasts of future fleet mix, and the status of scientific work embodied in the EPA MOVES model. This information is all available, but it needs to be assembled so that it is at the disposal of this project. Also identify the transportation strategies over which state and local governments have direct control or significant influence that have potential to reduce GHG emissions from surface transportation and reduce surface transportation energy use. Prepare a working paper in the form of a stage-setting introductory chapter to the final report. Point out the differences of opinion where appropriate. Note: The budget for Task 1 should not exceed $20,000. (See suggested resources in Special Note 2) Task 2: Review work to date under SHRP 2 Project C01 on the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework (CDMF). Identify key decision points in the CDMF where analysis of GHGs may be appropriate. Consider the approach and decision-making value of GHG analysis at key decision points. The way GHG emissions are considered early in the planning process or in a long-range plan context may be different from the project or corridor level. Consider how decisions made in early stages of the CDMF can be successfully handed forward. (See Special Note 1) Task 3: Review and summarize the cost-effectiveness of transportation strategies identified in Task 1 with respect to GHG reduction potential. Also consider energy use benefits where applicable. Identify high-impact policies with the best potential for implementation. Given the range of strategies available to states and local governments, where can the biggest impact be obtained for the least cost? Note: Rely on prior work in this area to the greatest extent possible. The intent is to provide guidance as to the relative efficacy of possible transportation approaches available to state and local governments. Task 4. Describe several generic GHG analysis situations and develop guidance on where analytic boundaries (e.g., geographic, temporal, construction, operations) should be drawn based on these situations. Use this to provide guidance on what types of analysis have meaning at different stages of the CDMF. For instance, on a large investment project comparing rail and highway alternatives, it may be appropriate to estimate the relative GHG emissions from construction and materials manufacture as well as the relative operational emission over some geographic area over some time period. Perhaps the result of such analyses can be distilled down to typical net per mile values that can be used for planning purposes. For other types of projects, the relative difference in GHG emissions may not be significant, so a project-level analysis is meaningless. For other types of decisions, it may be most appropriate to examine the implication of a 5-year plan or 20-year plan. This project cannot provide final answers because regulators are looking at similar questions. However, it can add some insight to the larger national debate. Task 5: Using appropriate outreach techniques assess the GHG analysis needs associated with key decision points in the CDMF and the tools and methods for conducting such analyses that are available to MPOs and states of different sizes and capability levels. For example, locations that do not conduct air quality analysis now are starting with far less information. What is the short-term strategy here? For the key decision points at which GHG analysis is relevant, identify a menu of options that vary by agency size and capability. Point analysts to the tools that exist and to their prerequisites and limitations. For the situations deemed most in need, develop methods that can be used in the interim while more formal approaches are devised. Develop systematic, step-by-step methods to use information already produced by the planning or design process, supplemented by other information as needed. Describe the information needed and how to obtain it. As called for by the proposed methods, assemble (or provide links to) supporting information from regularly updated third-party sources that contain information such as emission factors, energy use factors, emissions inventories, fleet distribution forecasts, lifecycle GHG impacts of fuels and materials. Note: Task 5 is a crucial task. Devote adequate resources to it. Task 6: Develop a straw-man strategy or strategies for addressing GHGs and link it to key decision points in the CDMF. The straw man strategy should include institutional relationships, a range of potential policies, analytical requirements, and analysis tools (including those from Task 5). Prepare a working paper. Task 7: Select at least four states in which transportation agencies are actively developing transportation sector GHG reduction strategies. Develop a plan to conduct workshops or similar exercises in these states to review and refine the straw man. Prepare a rationale for site selection, parties that should be invited, planned format, discussion guides, and baseline information needed. Involve state DOTs, MPOs, and other appropriate stakeholders, such as local governments, private industry, GHG task forces, and environmental agencies. Prepare a working paper and submit to SHRP 2 for review. Task 8: Following approval to proceed, conduct the workshops (or similar exercises) as proposed. Prepare a working paper summarizing key findings from each that will be developed for the CDMF. Special note: In the proposal identify the workshop facilitators and their qualifications. The discussion must be focused on how GHG emissions from various surface transportation actions should be incorporated into the CDMF. Task 9: Using the results of Task 8, develop a GHG strategy for the CDMF. Prepare draft materials to support specific key decision points in the CDMF. Specifically, the materials should include but not be limited to enhanced processes, policies, institutional requirements, and tools and methods being developed or already available. Identify and recommend solutions to known shortcomings. Proposers should suggest formats and approaches that will provide the information needed by different types of users at various stages in the CDMF, i.e., long-range plan, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) corridor or specialty plans, and environmental review. The materials should be developed in an electronic format that can be integrated directly into a web-based version of the CDMF. It will be necessary at this point to coordinate with a SHRP 2 integration contractor who will be assembling a unified Capacity product. Budget for coordination meetings. Develop the materials recognizing that users of the CDMF may search across key decision points to see how GHG emissions are dealt with at different points or they may search vertically at a particular point for in-depth guidance. The material should also be organized as a freestanding practitioners' handbook, still keyed to the key decision points in the CDMF. (Include a hypothetical outline of such a document in the proposal.) Submit the draft electronic materials and practitioners handbook to SHRP 2 for review. Task 10. Prepare a draft final report that documents project activities and findings. Do not duplicate the material in the practitioners' handbook. Submit the draft final report to SHRP 2 for review. Task 11. Following review, submit final products: electronic materials, practitioners' handbook, and final report. Requirements of the Research Team 1. Experience with state and metropolitan transportation planning 2. Experience with transportation energy and greenhouse gas analysis, including emission factors and air-quality models. 3. Familiarity with the activities of various states and groups of states to address GHG emissions. 4. Experience with the role and potential of travel demand models and traffic simulation models to address GHG emissions. 5. Experience with group facilitation and workshops. Special Notes Note 1. The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework is the product of SHRP 2 Project C01 and also the framework to which many SHRP 2 Capacity results will be attached in a large, web-based product. This product is the result of 25 case studies and six focus groups. While it is not absolutely final yet, it is sufficiently mature to serve as the framework for GHG analysis in Project C09. By the time C09 starts, the CDMF will have been vetted in each of the AASHTO regions and will be complete. More information on the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework and other SHRP 2 projects may be found at http://trb.org/shrp2/SHRPII_Capacity.asp Note 2. In addition to Project C10, other SHRP 2 projects touch on greenhouse gas issues. Project C03 is charged with considering the economic component of any environmental degradation caused by highway projects. For instance, clearing forest land has economic costs, one of which is elimination of a green house gas sink. Projects C06A and C06B are examining the business case for an ecological approach to environmental protection. Preserving or creating sinks is a new benefit that can be added to the business case. While greenhouse gases are not the primary focus of these projects, the C09 research agency will be asked to coordinate with the research teams for the related projects. This will take the form of a conference call(s) or contractors' meeting. Note 3. These resources provide background information: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Primer on Transportation and Climate Change, April 2008. The report and the literature review that supports it are available at www.transportation.org, bookstore. The first copy is free. Or http://downloads.transportation.org/ClimateChange.pdf (7.49 MB) Center for Clean Air Policy. Integrating Transportation, Energy Efficiency, and GHG Reduction Policies: A Guidebook for State and Local Policy Makers. The guidebook is a resource for state DOTs and MPOs in establishing GHG inventories and deciding among various mitigation strategies. View guidebook at: *http:www.ccap.org/guidebookAccess/login.php < http://climate.dot.gov/cgi-bin/ExitPage/good_bye.cgi?url=http://www.ccap.org/guidebookAccess/login.php > (Login required) U.S. DOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting. Assessing State Long-Range Transportation Planning Initiatives in the Northeast for Climate Energy Efficiency Benefits. This report identifies tools and methodologies to help the Northeastern states develop and implement strategies to reduce GHG emissions through the statewide, long-range transportation planning process. It also provides best practices and methods by which states can integrate GHG-reduction/mitigation goals in their long-range plans. View the final report: < http://climate.dot.gov/publications/index.html#bbg >. U.S. DOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Through State and Local Transportation Planning. This report evaluates how and why states, metropolitan planning organizations, cities, and transportation providers are pursuing GHG emission reductions, with a focus on transportation planning. The research improves understanding of how states and localities might contribute to GHG reduction through transportation decisions. View the final report: <http://climate.dot.gov/publications/index.html#reduction > Understanding and Responding to Climate Change. Highlights of National Academies Reports, 2008 Edition, The National Academy of Sciences, http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/ Ewing, Bartholomew, and Winkelman, et. al., Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, Urban Land Institute and Smart Growth America, 2007 Available at http://icma.org/main/ld.asp?from=search&ldid=20327&hsid=1&t=0 Climate Change 101: State Action and Climate Change 101: Local Action, Pew Center for Global Climate Change, www.pewclimate.org. Click "Global Warming Basics" on the navigation bar. TRB Special Report 290: Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation. Committee on Climate Change and U.S.Transportation. National Research Council. 2008. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290.pdf. 218 pp. These TRB projects are in progress. The project scope and status may be viewed at the location shown. NCHRP 25-25 (17), Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Analysis Techniques for Transportation Projects, http://www.trb.org/CRP/NCHRP/NCHRPProjects.asp?AreaID=25 NCHRP 20-24(59), Strategies for Reducing the Impacts of Surface Transportation on Global Climate Change http://www.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=2113 NCHRP 25-25(45) Transportation Program Responses to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Initiatives and Energy Reduction Programs, http://www.trb.org/CRP/NCHRP/NCHRPProjects.asp?AreaID=25 Potential for Energy Savings and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation: Estimated completion, spring 2009. This project covers all modes of passenger and freight transportation including air, rail, and water. Scenarios will be tested over a 25-50 year time frame. This project will examine the full range of potential strategies. There may or may not be strategies associated with state and local transportation decision making. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=48864 Relationships Among Development Patterns, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Energy Consumption, Expected completion 2010. This project was requested by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The study will consider the correlation between land development patterns and vehicle miles traveled, whether petroleum use can be reduced through changes in development patters, and the benefits of various policy strategies. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=48808 Deliverables • Working Paper from Task 1 • Working Paper from Task 6 • Working Paper from Task 7. Wait for approval from SHRP 2 before proceeding to Task 8. • Conduct workshops and prepare a working paper summarizing the key findings of each. • Strategy for addressing GHG in CDMF in electronic format. • Draft and final practitioners' handbook and electronic form of materials for incorporation by others into a web-based document • Draft Final Report • Final Report • Quarterly progress reports • Two interim meetings with SHRP 2 staff: one in Washington, DC and one at the contractor's facility • Telephone conference calls, as needed • One (1) interim meeting with the Technical Coordinating Committee in Washington DC; Irvine, CA; or Woods Hole, MA Funds Available: $800,000 Contract Period: 1.5 years for the entire project Responsible Staff: Stephen Andrle, sandrle@nas.edu, 202-334-2810 Authorization to Begin Work: January 2009, estimated Proposals (20 single-bound copies) are due not later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 9, 2008 This is a firm deadline, and extensions simply are not granted. In order to be considered, all 20 copies of the agency's proposal, accompanied by the executed, unmodified Liability Statement must be in our offices not later than the deadline shown, or they will be rejected. Delivery Address PROPOSAL-SHRP 2 ATTN: Neil F. Hawks Director, Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202-334-1430 Liability Statement The signature of an authorized representative of the proposing agency is required on the unaltered statement in order for SHRP 2 to accept the agency's proposal for consideration. Proposals submitted without this executed and unaltered statement by the proposal deadline will be summarily rejected. An executed, unaltered statement indicates the agency's intent and ability to execute a contract that includes the provisions in the statement. The Liability Statement is Figure 1 in the Manual for Conducting Research and Preparing Proposals for SHRP 2 ( http://trb.org/shrp2/SHRPII_Instructions.asp ) (see General Note 4). Here is a printable version of the SHRP 2 Liability Statement ( http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/LiabilityStatement.pdf ). A free copy of the Adobe Acrobat PDF reader is available at http://www.adobe.com. General Notes 1. Proposals will be evaluated by SHRP 2 staff and Expert Task Groups (ETGs) consisting of individuals collectively very knowledgeable in the problem area. Selection of an agency is made by the SHRP 2 Oversight Committee, based on the recommendation from SHRP 2 staff and the ETG. The following factors are considered: (1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experimental design; (3) the experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the proposer's plan for participation by disadvantaged business enterprises-small firms owned and controlled by minorities or women; and (5) the adequacy of facilities. 2. Any clarifications regarding this RFP will be posted on the SHRP 2 Web site ( www.TBR.org/SHRP2 ). Announcements of such clarifications will be posted on the front page and, when possible, will be noted in the TRB e-newsletter. Proposers are advised to check the Web site frequently until August 26, 2008, when no further comments will be posted. 3. According to the provisions of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, which relates to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs, all parties are hereby notified that the contract entered into pursuant to this announcement will be awarded without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability. 4. The essential features required in a proposal for research are detailed in the Manual for Conducting Research and Preparing Proposals for SHRP 2 ( http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/PreparingSHRP2Reports.pdf ). Proposals must be prepared according to this document, and attention is directed specifically to Section IV for mandatory requirements. Proposals that do not conform to these requirements will be rejected. 5. The total funds available are made known in the project statement and line items of the budget are examined to determine the reasonableness of the allocation of funds to the various tasks. If the proposed total cost exceeds the funds available, the proposal is rejected. 6. All proposals become the property of the Transportation Research Board. Final disposition will be made according to the policies thereof, including the right to reject all proposals. IMPORTANT NOTICE Potential proposers should understand that the research project described herein is tentative. The final content of the program depends on the level of funding made available. Nevertheless, to be prepared to execute research contracts as soon as possible after sponsors' approvals, the Strategic Highway Research Program is assuming that the tentative program will become official in its entirety and is proceeding with requests for proposals and selections of research agencies.
- Web Link
-
FedBizOpps Complete View
(https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=92932e54b64e248af4e75a043c53f419&tab=core&_cview=1)
- Record
- SN01626244-W 20080731/080729230451-92932e54b64e248af4e75a043c53f419 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |