SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the Transportation Planning and Programming Processes
- Notice Date
- 7/28/2009
- 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
- SHRP2_L05
- Archive Date
- 9/24/2009
- Point of Contact
- David Plazak, Phone: 202-334-1834, Linda Mason, Phone: 202-334-3241
- E-Mail Address
-
dplazak@nas.edu, lmason@nas.edu
(dplazak@nas.edu, lmason@nas.edu)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- SHRP 2 Request for Proposals Focus Area: Reliability Project Number: L05 Project Title: Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the Transportation Planning and Programming Processes Date Posted: July 28, 2009 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 www.trb.org/shrp2. Reliability Focus Area The major objective of SHRP 2 Reliability research is to greatly improve the reliability of highway travel times by reducing the frequency and effects of events that cause travel times to fluctuate in an unpredictable manner. The results of the research program should help local, state, and national agencies reduce travel time variability for travelers and shippers. The Reliability research plan addresses both recurring and nonrecurring congestion with an emphasis on nonrecurring congestion. The following seven potential sources of unreliable travel times (i.e., events that cause variable travel times) were identified: 1.traffic incidents, 2.work zones, 3.demand fluctuations, 4.special events 5.traffic control devices, 6.weather, 7. inadequate base capacity. The Reliability focus area targets travel time variation--that frustrating characteristic of the transportation system that means you must allow an hour to make a trip that normally takes 30 minutes. Not only is reliability an important component for travelers and shippers, it is also an area of the congestion problem in which transportation agencies can make significant gains even as travel demand grows. The seven sources of unreliability account for approximately half of the total delay. Reducing reliability-related delay will also result in fewer crashes, reduced vehicle emissions and fuel use, and other benefits. These benefits can be realized through a mix of leading-edge research into a better understanding of strategies and their consequences, new technology and practices, and reducing institutional barriers so that our existing knowledge can be more fully exploited. The goals of the Reliability focus area are built around the first five of the seven sources mentioned above. Work on weather-related issues will be coordinated with the Road Weather Management R&D program under way at the Federal Highway Administration. Related research on inadequate base capacity being undertaken in the SHRP 2 Capacity focus area and elsewhere will be closely coordinated by SHRP 2 staff. Project Background Funding for making capacity and reliability improvements to transportation systems is inherently limited. It appears that these funding limitations will exist for decades to come. Planning large-scale capacity improvements to transportation networks has also become increasingly difficult and time-consuming due to other community, social, and environmental constraints. For these reasons, many transportation agencies are looking more closely at traffic-operations and related improvements as a way to get the most out of the existing transportation system. These improvements range from expensive and elaborate to relatively inexpensive "quick fixes." This shift creates a need to give more consideration to measuring the reliability of the system, which is what these operational strategies often achieve. As an example, many state departments of transportation (state DOTs) and metropolitan-level transportation organizations (such as metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)) have focused on incident response and incident management strategies to improve the performance of their transportation systems. However, transportation organizations have traditionally focused on measuring and forecasting system capacity and, more recently, on measuring system physical condition and safety. Reliability performance measures and strategies are simply not well integrated into DOT and MPO planning and programming processes. Current transportation planning and programming processes cannot adequately compare the relative benefits and costs of capacity additions versus reliability improvements. There is a need to develop objective methods to make comparisons and assess tradeoffs. Project Objectives Reliability is not yet in the mainstream of transportation planning, programming, and budgeting. This project will develop the means-including technical procedures-for state DOTs and MPOs to fully integrate mobility and reliability performance measures and strategies into the transportation planning and programming processes. This will allow operational improvements of all types (including capital projects and other expenditures) to be considered in planning and programming along with more traditional types of project investments. The end result will be that limited available dollars are invested in a more optimal manner and that our existing investments in capacity are used as effectively as possible. The target audiences for this research will be: planners/programmers and project managers within MPOs and state DOTs, as well as their operational and budget personnel. A secondary audience will be decision makers, both appointed and elected, involved in planning and programming. It is important to note that the L05 project is an integral component in both the SHRP 2 Reliability and Capacity research focus areas. For Reliability, the project provides the key link into system and project planning, programming, and budgeting. This link is largely nonexistent now. For Capacity, the L05 project helps provide knowledge about how to maintain or improve traffic throughput on the existing system before often-controversial new capacity enhancement projects are undertaken. It is the intent of the SHRP 2 Reliability and Capacity Technical Coordinating Committees (TCCs) and the SHRP 2 Oversight Committee that the results of Reliability Project L05 be integrated into the Collaborative Decision Making-Framework web-based tool being developed as a part of Capacity Project C01. The Reliability program has already committed resources to the Capacity program for this purpose. Proposers for Project L05 must demonstrate that they understand and plan for this critical coordination with the C01 research contractor (see Special Note A). Tasks 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 objectives for this project. 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 objectives. Phase I of this research project is intended to provide a strong knowledge base from which the design of Phase II of the project can be developed. Phase I is intended to synthesize existing knowledge, while Phase II will develop new knowledge. Phase III will focus on communicating the research results and identifying a path to effective implementation and introduction into practice. Because of the complexity of this project and the extensive linkages it has to other ongoing and future SHRP 2 Reliability and Capacity projects, proposers should provide a detailed management plan for the project. It should address, among other things, how the research team would propose to interact with a SHRP 2 Technical Expert Task Group that will be appointed to monitor the project as it moves through major tasks and produces major deliverables. In addition, it should provide details on how the research team proposes to coordinate with other SHRP 2 projects. Phase I: Foundational Research and Synthesis of Practice Task I.1: Prepare a literature review on how reliability performance measures and strategies have been and could be integrated into transportation project planning and programming. Identify what other measures are considered alongside reliability measures, including mobility. Reliability and other measures include outputs, outcomes and composite measures such as those used in benefit-cost analysis or multi-attribute decision making. Consider the mobility measures in SHRP 2 Project C05, particularly the capacity measure of sustainable flow. See the Federal Highway Administration's Planning for Operations web site and other relevant web sites. The literature review should be international in scope, as some other nations are more advanced than the United States in terms of incorporating reliability performance measures into transportation planning, programming, and budgeting (see Special Note B). Task I.2: Survey the state of the practice among state DOTs and MPOs with regard to considering travel time reliability in planning, programming, and budgeting. Identify organizational/institutional approaches as well as analytic and modeling tools for exploring choices and tradeoffs involving reliability and other more traditional mobility improvements, both with and without financial constraints, and in both the near and long terms. Where DOTs and MPOs have not attempted to address reliability in planning or programming, the survey should explore the reasons for not doing so. The survey should also identify emerging practices in this area (see Special Note C). Task I.3: Identify potential case studies for Phase II. Phase II of the research will include the development of a practitioners' handbook that will be enhanced by the inclusion of case studies. Use the survey as one means to identify relevant case studies. Task I.4: Coordinate with other relevant SHRP 2 project teams in terms of useful inputs they can provide for project L05. This work must draw on the results of projects L03, L11, and all other pertinent completed or ongoing SHRP 2 research (see Special Note D). The expected outcome of this subtask is a white paper on coordination. Task I.5: Discuss and evaluate which reliability performance measures and strategies are the most appropriate and effective for application in the planning, programming, and budgeting process. Discuss whether there is a clear linkage between implementation of a strategy and a change in reliability, mobility, and other performance measures that will be evaluated together. If the linkage is weak or non-existent, propose one or more ways to strengthen it. Task I.6: Prepare an interim research report that presents the results of Tasks I.1 through I.5 to guide research Phases II and III. Phase II: Practitioner Handbook and Other Product Development Task II.1: Develop a logical framework for bringing consideration of reliability into the planning, programming, and budgeting process. Where and how should the various stages of the planning, programming, and budgeting process address reliability along with mobility and other performance measures? What adjustments to the planning, programming, and budgeting processes should occur that would be helpful in allowing simultaneous consideration of reliability, mobility, and other key factors, including costs. How should this be accomplished at the statewide or metropolitan system level, the corridor level, and programming/budget level? Tie the results of this project to the ongoing SHRP 2 work to develop a new Collaborative Decision-Making Framework (CDMF). The research team will need to coordinate its activities closely with the SHRP 2 C01 research team. Task II.2: Identify and incorporate the quantitative and qualitative analytical procedures necessary for evaluating choices and trade-offs among different investments that address reliability using existing SHRP 2 and other research. Examples could include monetizing reliability benefits for cost/benefit and other forms of analysis and safety benefits. This work should build on results of SHRP 2 projects L04, L11, L14, C04, and C05 and a planned international workshop on valuing reliability (October 15-16, 2009 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) Another key resource is the US Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) Joint Program Office on ITS benefits web site (http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/). Task II.2 should be mainly focused on the systems planning and corridor planning levels. The expected outcome from this subtask should be a detailed white paper on analytical methods that can provide the means to make comparisons and tradeoffs between capacity enhancements and operational/reliability improvements. Task II.3: Discuss coordination and communication within an agency and among agencies necessary to effectively address reliability and other issues. Intra- and inter-agency coordination and communication have important implications regarding programming, budgeting, and funding of reliability strategies. Document useful state DOT and MPO case studies and effective practices, to the extent that they exist. What strategies will strengthen the ability of different entities in a multijurisdictional environment to foster meaningful evaluation of reliability, mobility, and other improvements as well as key costs? How can improvements to planning strengthen the programming process? Can the linkages among planning, programming, and budgeting be enhanced? Examine the reports from SHRP 2 Reliability Project L06 in undertaking Task II.3 Task II.4: Prepare a draft handbook for transportation practitioners (planners and improvement programming staff) that incorporates the results from all previous tasks. This should be a "how to" product for the systems planning, corridor planning, and project planning levels, and for programming/budgeting levels. Task II.5: Propose an approach to assessing and validating the material in the draft handbook and carry it out. The creativity and effectiveness of the approach in terms of promoting buy-in and acceptance of handbook content will be a consideration in selection of the contractor. Validation will help determine if the handbook is understandable and if transportation and planning agencies can potentially adopt the recommended changes to planning and programming procedures. Task II.6: Revise the draft handbook based on the results of Task II.5 and prepare the final handbook. Phase III: Communication of Results and Implementation Plan Task III.1: Produce an Executive Summary of the project research results and the handbook, including PowerPoint/multimedia presentations. These products should be written in plain language so they can be used by both practitioners and decision makers, although the main intended audience is practitioners in the transportation planning, programming, and budgeting arenas. Task III.2: Develop a reference guide for planners and programming/budgeting staff to help them understand key reliability performance measures and the anticipated impacts of reliability strategies related to them. This should answer questions such as: What types of data are needed to effectively implement reliability performance measures? Reliability strategies should be grouped into logical levels of complexity from simple and easily implemented to complex and challenging to adopt. The approximate time needed to implement them should be indicated. Task III.3: Develop a suggested implementation pathway for the handbook, for example a "lead states" effort designed to mainstream the practices it contains. Identify potential barriers to implementation. Task III.4: Develop an evaluation framework to determine the extent to which the handbook and other research products have been successfully mainstreamed. The evaluation framework will be applied after this research project is completed by the organization responsible for implementing the SHRP 2 Reliability products. Task III.5: Coordinate and feed into other relevant SHRP 2 projects (especially projects L17, C01, and C02) the research outputs and products from this project. For example, work with the SHRP 2 C01 project contractor to make sure the results of this project are integrated into the C02 performance measurement web site and the key decision points structure of the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework for Highway Capacity (see Special Note D). Task III.6: Identify any unmet research needs and provide suggestions for future research. Task III.7: Prepare a final report summarizing the process used to conduct the research for this project and the results and findings of the research. This report should also incorporate white papers identified in Phases I and II. Deliverables Task I.6: Interim research report at the end of Phase I Task II.4: Draft handbook that can be reviewed and validated by selected DOTs and MPOs Task II.5: Technical memorandum outlining the assessment and validation approach for review by the project ETG Task II.6: A final handbook on how to incorporate reliability strategies and performance measures into the planning and programming process. This would include case studies of how reliability has been incorporated into planning and programming processes. It will also integrate the results from previous SHRP 2 research projects. This deliverable should be prepared with transportation planners and programmers in mind. Task III.1: An executive summary of the handbook and research project results. This deliverable should also be aimed at planners, programmers, and budgeting staffs and would be used to interest practitioners in the handbook. Task III.7: A research report documenting how the project was conducted and its major results and findings. Quarterly progress reports: as described in the SHRP 2 Manual for Conducting Research and Preparing Proposals. Special Notes Special Note A: Because of the interaction between projects, parallel timing of some projects, and tight schedule, it will be necessary for SHRP 2 researchers to coordinate with each other and with the SHRP 2 staff. The research team should allow resources for at least two meetings in Washington, D.C. In addition, a SHRP 2 staff officer may request a briefing once or twice during the project at the researcher's offices. Special Note B: The research team should concentrate on reviewing recent literature--that published over the past 5 years. The review should be international in scope and while focusing on the highway mode, should be multimodal in scope since travelers decision sets may involve a choice between modes. The literature review should communicate clearly the key findings of selected literature that is foundational to the remaining tasks in this research project. Special Note C: The research team should also be prepared to monitor efforts in travel reliability information that are underway at the US Department of Transportation, leading state DOTs, and leading metropolitan traffic operations agencies throughout the duration of the research. Special Note D: The results of other SHRP 2 Reliability and Capacity projects will help to inform this project. These include in particular: L01: Integrating Business Processes to Improve Reliability L02: Establishing Monitoring Programs for Travel Time Reliability L03: Analytic Procedures for Determining the Impacts of Reliability Strategies to Mitigate Nonrecurring Congestion L04: Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures in Planning and Operations Modeling L06: Institutional Architectures to Advance Operational Strategies L07: Evaluation of the Costs and Effectiveness of Highway Design Features to Improve Travel Time Reliability L11: Evaluating Alternative Operations Strategies to Improve Travel Time Reliability L14: Effectiveness of Different Approaches to Disseminating Traveler Information on Travel Time Reliability C01: A Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity C02: Systems-Based Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making C04: Improving Our Understanding of How Highway Congestion and Pricing Affect Travel Demand C05: Understanding the Contribution of Operations, Technology, and Design to Meeting Highway Capacity Needs In addition, the results of this project are envisioned as input to other projects in the SHRP 2 Reliability and Capacity focus areas, in particular project L17: A Framework for Improving Travel Time Reliability. This project will be under way by late 2010. Proposers should be prepared to coordinate with the contractor for project L17. In addition, the results of this project will feed into the web-based tool for Capacity project C02 and into the overall Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity (C01). The Reliability Technical Coordinating Committee of SHRP 2 has dedicated funding to the Capacity focus area to ensure that this linkage is made. Proposers should generally be prepared to coordinate with other research teams involved in SHRP 2 research projects where there are potential synergies. It is strongly suggested that proposers provide in their management plan for the project a section on how they intend to coordinate with other SHRP 2 research teams as this coordination will be so critical to the success of SHRP 2 Reliability project L05. Special Note E: In evaluating this particular project, the SHRP 2 staff and ETG will look carefully for a multidisciplinary approach to the problem. The ideal team will include transportation engineers, transportation planners, experts in traffic operations and travel reliability, and experts in communications and marketing. Expertise in communications and marketing is suggested to help ensure that the products envisioned in Phase III of the project achieve the desired results and are highly useable by both practitioners and decision makers. The ETG will be especially focused on reviewing proposals to ensure that they take full advantage of SHRP 2 and other relevant research results. For instance, proposers should not re-invent reliability performance measures or reliability strategies adequately explored in other projects. Duplication of other SHRP 2 projects should be avoided. Efforts should be focused on planning, programming, and closely related budgeting matters, and avoid any broader scope. Evaluators will require clear communications in the products of this project. A proposal that reads like a theoretical research document will likely be discounted. Special Note F: The SHRP 2 Reliability Focus Area will, through projects L13 and L16, be developing an archive of travel reliability data from many of the SHRP 2 Reliability projects. The research team should be prepared to supply any products in formats that are appropriate for this archive. Funds Available: Entire Project: $1,500,000 Budgets for project phases should be consistent with the level of effort proposed. It is strongly suggested that the bulk of project resources and time be concentrated on Phase II of the effort, followed by Phase III. It will be important to be economical in the use of time and budgetary resources during Phase I. Contract Time: 24 months Responsible Staff: David Plazak, dplazak@nas.edu, 202-334-1834 Authorization to Begin Work: February 2010, anticipated Proposal Due Date: September 9, 2009 Proposals (20 single-bound copies) are due at the address below by 4:30 p.m. on September 9, 2009. This is a firm deadline, and extensions are not granted. 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 rejected. An executed, unaltered statement indicates the agency's intent and ability to execute a contract that includes the provisions in the statement. Here is a printable version of the 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. The Liability Statement is included as Figure 1 in the Manual for Conducting Research and Preparing Proposals for SHRP 2 (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/PreparingSHRP2Reports.pdf) referred to in General Note 4. 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-the approach to validating the handbook is a key consideration; (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 (DBEs)--small firms owned and controlled by minorities or women; and (5) the adequacy of facilities. TRB and the SHRP 2 Oversight Committee strongly encourage the significant participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in SHRP 2 research contracts. Although no quota is specified nor is DBE participation mandated, the proposer's plan for involvement of DBEs is a factor in selection of the research contractor, and the contractor's adherence to its DBE plan will be monitored during the contract period. Contractors are required to submit periodic reports comparing actual with proposed payments to DBEs. The "Research Team Builder," which can be found on the SHRP 2 website, under Resources, is a resource for proposers interested in participating on research teams. 2. Any clarifications regarding this RFP will be posted on the SHRP 2 Web site (www.TRB.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 19, 2009, 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 second 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
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/NationalAcademies/NATRB/TRBSHRP2/SHRP2_L05/listing.html)
- Record
- SN01890686-W 20090730/090729000832-0a5d002f91b85a3134a13ba43181fc62 (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 |