BACKGROUND
There is a major national emphasis on highway safety and the attainment of aggressive reductions in traffic fatalities. Two significant factors in fatal crashes are speeding and red light running. Technologies have been developed to automatically detect these and other traffic violations. In 2004, the AASHTO Board of Directors passed a policy resolution to support greater use of automated traffic enforcement. Implementation of these technologies has grown to the point that studies of best practices and research on their effectiveness can provide valuable information for state and local jurisdictions contemplating automated traffic enforcement.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this project are to (1) prepare a comprehensive assessment of automated speeding and red light enforcement activity in the United States and (2) develop guidelines to ensure successful operation of current and future programs.
Accomplishment of the project objectives will require at least the following tasks.
TASKS
Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. The NCHRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objectives. 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
Task 1. Develop an inventory of current U.S. automated enforcement programs and past programs that were terminated. Include information such as the type of equipment used, operational procedures, and number of cameras. Document reasons for programs that were terminated.
Task 2. Conduct a critical review of the literature on automated enforcement. Topics of interest include various types of enforcement strategies and their effects on human behavior (including the frequency and severity of crashes), cost effectiveness, resource requirements, and studies of public opinion.
Task 3. Review, summarize, and construct a matrix of existing state and local legal requirements for initiating and operating an automated enforcement program, such as: engineering studies, signage, public information and education, initial grace period, types of enforcement, adjudication of violations (criminal or civil), and broadness of application.
Task 4. Construct a matrix of best practices and lessons learned from existing/past automated enforcement programs, including: implementation issues, legal issues, contracting, revenue, role of vendors, engineering (e.g., signal timing), public information and education , safeguards to ensure fairness, politics, state versus local authority, and inter-agency collaboration.
Task 5. Prepare an interim report providing the results of Tasks 1 through 4. The interim report should also identify key stakeholder groups and reasons for their organization’s concern with automated enforcement, point out knowledge gaps encountered in the research, include a draft outline of guidelines for successful operation of an automated enforcement program, and provide an updated work plan for Phase II. Approximately 1 month after submission of the interim report, meet with the NCHRP panel to review the report. NCHRP approval of the revised Phase II work plan will be required before proceeding to Phase II.
Note: The anticipated timeline for completion of Phase I is 9 months including 1 month for panel review and approval of interim report and Phase II work plan.
Phase II
Note: Although a detailed work plan for Phase II will be updated as part of Phase I, proposals shall contain the research agency’s thinking on how Phase II of the research will be conducted.
Task 6. Conduct additional research/surveys to address knowledge gaps identified in Tasks 1 through 5.
Task 7. Develop and submit draft guidelines for successful implementation/operation of current and future programs with specific advice for legislators, engineers, and criminal justice agencies.
Task 8. Upon panel approval of draft guidelines, submit them to stakeholders identified by the panel for review and comment.
Task 9. Submit a final report documenting the research conducted and stand-alone guidelines. Provide an electronic database summarizing inventories of automated enforcement programs and legislation.
SPECIAL NOTES
A. Proposals should include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in Figure 4 in the brochure, "Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals" (http://www.trb.org/NotesDocs/ProposalPrep.pdf). Proposals also should include a breakdown of all costs (e.g., wages, indirect costs, travel, materials, and total) for each task.
B. NCHRP projects are intended to produce results that will be applied in practice, and proposals and the project final report must contain implementation plans for moving the results of the research into practice. Item 4(c), "Anticipated Research Results," in each proposal must include an Implementation Plan that describes activities to promote application of the product of this research. It is expected that the implementation plan will evolve during the project; however, proposals must describe, as a minimum, the following: (a) the "product" expected from the research, (b) the audience or "market" for this product, (c) a realistic assessment of impediments to successful implementation, (d) the institutions and individuals who might take leadership in applying the research product, (e) the activities necessary for successful implementation, and (f) the criteria for judging the progress and consequences of implementation.
C. Item 5 in the proposal, "Qualifications of the Research Team," must include a section labeled "Disclosure." Information relevant to the NCHRP's need to ensure objectivity and to be aware of possible sources of significant financial or organizational conflict of interest in conducting the research must be presented in this section of the proposal. For example, under certain conditions, ownership of the proposing agency, other organizational relationships, or proprietary rights and interests could be perceived as jeopardizing an objective approach to the research effort, and proposers are asked to disclose any such circumstances and to explain how they will be accounted for in this study. If there are no issues related to objectivity, this should be stated.
D. Proposals are evaluated by the NCHRP staff and project panels consisting of individuals collectively very knowledgeable in the problem area. Selection of an agency is made by the project panel considering the following factors: (1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experiment design; (3) the experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the plan for ensuring application of results; (5) the proposer's plan for participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises--small firms owned and controlled by minorities or women; and (6) the adequacy of the facilities.
NOTE: Factor No. 5 is new. The proposer's plan for participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises should be incorporated in Item 5 of the proposal.
