SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- Effectiveness of Different Approaches to Disseminating Traveler Information on Travel Time Reliability
- Notice Date
- 3/10/2009
- 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_L14
- Archive Date
- 5/6/2009
- Point of Contact
- David Plazak,, Phone: 202-334-1834, Linda Mason,, Phone: 202-334-3241
- E-Mail Address
-
dplazak@nas.edu, lmason@nas.edu
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- SHRP 2 Request for Proposals Focus Area: Reliability Project Number: L14 Project Title: Effectiveness of Different Approaches to Disseminating Traveler Information on Travel Time Reliability Date Posted: March 10, 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 unreliability sources 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 A number of states and metropolitan areas communicate travel time information and related highway system condition data to travelers. Of roughly 100 metropolitan areas responding to a U.S. Department of Transportation survey conducted in 2006, 27 indicated they displayed travel time information on variable message signs. Besides variable message signs, other communications channels and technology platforms are used to communicate travel time information. These include broadcast media, satellite radio, the Internet, cell phone networks (e.g. 511 and other services for wireless devices), highway advisory radio, and telematics services such as General Motors' OnStar. Other information besides travel time that may be communicated includes travel speed, congestion, incident locations, alternative routes, work zone locations, and weather. In addition, a number of private sector companies also communicate travel time and related information to travelers through a variety of channels and on different technology platforms. There is strong evidence based on empirical studies that road users are nearly as (if not more) concerned about travel time reliability as about average travel time. Individuals are concerned about being late for work and about missing other important appointments. Motor carriers may be faced with penalties for not meeting service agreements and delivering shipments late. Information about travel time reliability (as opposed to simple information on travel times) is much less frequently communicated to travelers at present. Only a few states and metropolitan areas provide such information for either pre-trip planning or for en route decision making by travelers. An example is Washington State DOT's 95 percent reliable travel time calculator for highways in the Puget Sound region, which travelers can access over the Internet for pre-trip planning. Travelers do get considerable information about reliability from their own daily experiences. However, there is an overall lack of knowledge about what reliability information is useful to travelers, how best to communicate it to them, how reliability information impacts traveler choices and demand at given times on particular facilities, and how communicating information about reliability affects system performance, particularly in terms of nonrecurring highway congestion. It is recognized that travelers use multiple communications channels at different stages of their journey and also use them to gain additional intelligence about the transportation network and how conditions might affect their journey. Part of the problem with communicating travel reliability information within the transportation network and to travelers is the lack of a shared language about reliability-a lexicon. There are many definitions of travel reliability and some are simply beyond the comprehension of travelers and most professionals. "Reliability" itself is a term of art that may have little meaning to the traveling public. On the other hand, some commonly used concepts such as "buffer time" seem to be intuitively understood by many. Travelers quickly learn to reserve additional time for some journeys on some routes in order to work around nonrecurring delays associated with things like incidents, bad weather, work zones, special events, and malfunctioning traffic control devices. A key issue in this research is to find the right combinations of words, numbers, symbols, layout, lighting, color, and spacing to communicate information about travel time and reliability to travelers using a particular communications channel and technology platform. Another key issue is to find the best combination and arrangement of information so that travelers may make optimal travel choices from their point of view. Important choices include whether to take a trip or not, departure time, mode choice, and route choice. Information about travel time reliability is important for free roads but also for priced roads, which are likely to become more prevalent. This project will be inherently more valuable in urban areas where nonrecurring congestion is most severe and widespread. Approximately half of all traffic congestion in urban areas is nonrecurring. This project will focus on urban areas, however, many of the research results could be transferable to rural areas that experience travel unreliability due to weather, incidents, and other sources of nonrecurring congestion. Almost all congestion in rural areas is nonrecurring in nature. Objectives This project has multiple objectives, which are to: 1. Better understand the current and near-term future dimensions of the travel time/travel reliability information marketplace, including technologies, the roles of the public and private sectors, and choices (both free and priced) available to travelers. 2. Better understand what network travel time and travel reliability information travelers require, particularly in complex metropolitan environments where many travel choices are possible. Better understand how travelers would use improved information. 3. Determine how best to communicate travel time reliability information to travelers so that they can understand it and use it to make optimal travel choices. The focus is on content and format of travel time reliability information appropriate to specific technology platforms and communication channels. Develop a guide to help providers of traveler information ensure that information regarding travel time reliability is offered in a manner that is most useful to travelers. 4. To the extent possible, quantify the potential for improvements in the communication of travel reliability information to affect traveler choices such that positive impacts on system performance occur, e.g. improved transportation system reliability. 5. Develop a simple and standardizable lexicon for communicating travel time reliability concepts among transportation professionals and travelers. 6. Develop prioritized, near-term strategies for improved dissemination of travel time reliability information and provide guidance for state departments of transportation and other public sector transportation agencies that are contemplating providing travel reliability information to travelers. 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 Phase I of this research project is intended to provide a strong knowledge base on which the design of Phase II of the project can be based. Phase I is intended to synthesize existing knowledge, while Phase II will develop new knowledge. Task 1: Conduct and document a literature review focused on travel reliability information and its communication to travelers. The literature review should represent a critical examination of what is known about travel time reliability information and effective communication of such information to travelers. It should, for example address what is known about communication of information via different technology platforms, through different communication channels, with different message sets, symbologies, words and phrases, patterns and colors, and with different map features. Evaluations of existing practices, such as the use of changeable message signs, should be synthesized for key lessons learned. [See Special Note B] Task 2: Plan and conduct interviews with experts including but not limited to: • public sector traffic operations agencies, • metropolitan transportation planning agencies, • public transit operators, academic researchers, • private sector traveler information and travel reliability information providers, • media companies, consumer electronics companies, and other key players to provide a knowledge base of recent experience (positive and negative). The interviews should explore how to communicate reliability information to users, the general state of the nature and effectiveness of the practice today, and any plans for providing increased levels of travel time reliability information to travelers during the next five years. Identify critical gaps in knowledge that are relevant to the original research to be conducted during Phase II of the research. Finally, obtain any available expert opinions regarding the potential impacts of providing effective travel reliability information in terms of such indicators as customer satisfaction, impact on travel choices, and impact on system performance and reliability. [See Special Note C] Task 3: Conduct and prepare a technology and innovation scan for the next five years to identify devices, software, information sources, and information services that will likely influence the improved provision of travel reliability information to end users. The scan should address both in-vehicle and other technologies and information and should also span both the public and private sectors. Continue to monitor developments in technology and innovation until the research design for Phase II of the project is completed. The pace of technological and service development is quite rapid, as evidenced in global positioning systems-based (GPS) technologies. Task 4: Based on the results from Tasks 1-3 above, distill a focused set of avenues of investigation for the original research to be conducted during Phase II. This task anticipates the need to develop a manageable experimental design for Phase II of the research. It is critical that during this task the contractor begin to focus their efforts; there is simply not enough time and budget and there are too many combinations of technology platforms, communications channels, message sets, and message formats for research to proceed unfocused and succeed. Develop a concise summary of selected, key gaps in our knowledge about how to effectively communicate reliability information to travelers and a preliminary set of research hypotheses that could effectively be explored during Phase II of the project. Consider communications channels, technology platforms, message content, and message format (e.g. words, graphics, symbols, colors, and arrangement). At a minimum, the contractor should consider how best to communicate average travel time and an indicator of the variability of travel time. In addition, where it makes sense, consider and account for the dollar cost of travel to be used in a later task to impute the values of average travel time and travel time reliability. Phase II The bulk of time and budgetary resources for this research project should be directed to Phase II of the project. Phase II should produce new knowledge to improve the effectiveness of communicating travel reliability information to travelers. Task 5: Prepare a detailed management plan for Phase II of the research so that it can be conducted as effectively as possible within time and budgetary restrictions. Focused investigation is required during Phase II since there are a multitude of potential reliability information communications platforms, technologies, devices, messages, and message formats that could be evaluated and explored. The research management plan should provide that focus based on the knowledge base built during Phase I. Task 6: Develop an experimental framework, an experimental design, and data collection plan, and an analysis plan for Phase II of the study. The designs should be based on evaluating the effectiveness of a feasible and manageable set of travel time reliability information offerings and message sets that can be tested for effectiveness in communication to travelers through a set of laboratory experiments and simulations. The experimental design needs to address important travel choices (such as route choice, mode choice, and departure time choice) in addition to information about and formatting of travel time and travel time reliability. Choose experimental and simulation methods that are appropriate for the type of travel reliability information being communicated and the communications channel being utilized (e.g., desktop computer or personal digital assistant/Internet-enabled cell phone for pre-trip planning, driving simulator for en-route information, and field studies for validation.) This plan should also address quality assurance for data collection. This plan should include a methodology to identify potential study participants, questions to be asked, information to be compiled and analyzed, and special considerations in collecting data, including possible Institutional Review Board approval for human subjects research." Task 7: Assemble necessary equipment in appropriate locations and recruit the subjects needed for any experiments included in the experimental framework and experimental design. Proposals should include the costs of any equipment rental or purchase and any compensation that will be provided for experimental subjects. Any cooperative agreements required for experiments to be conducted should also be explained in the appropriate section of the proposal. Task 8: Perform data collection to support the experimental design outlined in Task 6. Ensure that all data are of appropriate quality and organize them so the remaining tasks can proceed efficiently. Ensure that all data collected as a part of this phase of the research can be preserved and archived. [See Special Note F] Task 9: Examine and analyze the data collected during Task 7 using statistical and other appropriate methods. Task 10: Draw valid conclusions from the data examination, statistical analysis, and other analysis conducted during Task 9. Task 11: Report the findings for the experimental portion of the Phase II research (Tasks 5 through 9). The report should emphasize findings about the types, formats, and content of message sets that are most effective in being understood and used by travelers and those that actually influence travel behavior that could lead to improved travel reliability. The report should also identify remaining gaps in knowledge that could be addressed by future research. Task 12: Based on the choices explored in the experiments and the information presented concerning average travel time, travel time reliability, and direct or indirect information on the costs of the alternatives, estimate utility functions that can be used to impute the average value of travel time and the value of travel time reliability. Document the analysis, findings, and conclusions. Task 13: Create a suggested lexicon for communicating key travel time reliability concepts and information both within the transportation profession and to the traveling public. In this lexicon, numbers, symbols, colors, auditory signals, and a host of other sensory triggers are as important as words. Task 14: Formulate and prioritize key guidelines for public sector traveler information and traffic operations professionals and state and metropolitan transportation agency managers based on the results of Phases I and II of the research. Priorities should, to the extent possible, derive from the results of Tasks 2 and 11. These guidelines should be communicated in the form of a Guidebook and Deployment Advisory on how best to introduce and provide reliability information to travelers so that such information is most likely to be understood and used by travelers. Determine and create the most effective form(s) for the Guidebook and Deployment Advisory, e.g., a printed document, a CD-ROM, and/or an on-line publication or a web-based tool. The Guidebook and Deployment Guide should include the lexicon developed during Task 13. Deliverables 1. Report on Phase I of the research, preferably in a searchable form 2. Phase II Research Management Plan in the form of a technical memorandum 3. Experimental Design and Data Collection Plan for Phase II in the form of a technical memorandum 4. A technical memorandum on the results from the original research conducted for Phase II of the research 5. Guidebook and deployment advisory on communicating reliability information to travelers, including a travel time reliability lexicon 6. Quarterly progress reports 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. Proposers 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 contractor should concentrate on reviewing recent literature--that published over the past five 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 contractor should also be prepared to monitor efforts in travel reliability information that are underway at the U.S. Department of Transportation, leading state departments of transportation, leading metropolitan traffic operations agencies, and in the private sector throughout the duration of the research. Special Note D: The results of this project are envisioned as input for other projects in the SHRP 2 Reliability focus area, 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. The results of other, ongoing SHRP 2 Reliability projects will likely help to inform this project in terms of suggesting travel reliability information that could be communicated. These include in particular: L02: "Establishing Monitoring Programs for Travel Time Reliability" L11: "Evaluating Alternative Operations Strategies to Improve Travel Time Reliability" Proposers should generally be prepared to coordinate with other contractors involved in SHRP 2 research projects where there are potential synergies. Special Note E: Proposals will be evaluated by SHRP 2 staff and Expert Task Groups (ETGs) consisting of individuals collectively very knowledgeable in problem area. Selection of an agency is made by the SHRP 2 Oversight Committee, based on the recommendation of the 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 and women; and (5) the adequacy of facilities. In the case of this particular project, the SHRP 2 staff and ETG will be carefully looking for a multidisciplinary approach to the problem. The ideal team will include behavioral scientists, cognitive psychologists, social scientists, statisticians, communications experts, transportation engineers, transportation planners, and experts in intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and traffic operations. Special Note F: The SHRP 2 Reliability Focus Area will, through project L13, determine the feasibility of developing an archive for travel reliability data for SHRP 2 Reliability and related projects. The L14 contractor should be prepared to supply any data collected and produced (structured and unstructured) for inclusion in the archive should it be developed. Funds Available: Entire Project: $1,000,000 Budgets for project phases should be consistent with the level of effort proposed. As a guideline, the effort should be distributed as follows: Phase I: $150,000 Phase II: $850,000 Contract Time: 24 months; Phase I: 4 months; Phase II: 20 months Responsible Staff: David Plazak, dplazak@nas.edu, 202-334-1834 Authorization to Begin Work: October 2009, anticipated Proposal Due Date: April 21, 2009 Proposals (20 single-bound copies) are due not later than 4:30 p.m. on April 21, 2009. This is a firm deadline, and extensions are simply 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: 202-334-1340 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. 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 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; (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 DBEs 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 contractor selection, 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 Contractor Expression of Interest section of the SHRP 2 website is a resource for proposers interested in participating on research teams. This database is being enhanced and will be renamed the Research Team Builder. 2. Any clarifications regarding this RFP will be posted on the SHRP 2 Web site ( http://www.trb.org/shrp2/Default.asp ). 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 March 26, 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 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=ad158acb011d24b2239a3f2a4d13ae20&tab=core&_cview=1)
- Record
- SN01766352-W 20090312/090310220900-ad158acb011d24b2239a3f2a4d13ae20 (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 |