<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Research in Progress (RIP)</title>
    <link>https://rip.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://rip.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Placement Options for In-street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6a)</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2593953</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study evaluated the effects of R1-6a pedestrian crossing signs, installed in various configurations, on driver yielding behavior at uncontrolled marked crosswalks across six Oregon locations. The research analyzed both staged and naturalistic crossings under different experimental conditions, including baseline, tubular markers, single and multiple R1-6a signs, and gateway installations. Video data were coded to assess crossing volumes and yielding rates for over 5,900 pedestrians. Baseline yielding was already high, averaging 85% nearside and 89% farside, but increased further with sign treatments. The gateway configuration achieved the highest yielding rates of 92% (nearside) and 97% (farside), while curb-top edge sign placement produced 87% nearside yielding and 99% farside yielding. These findings demonstrate that R1-6a signs, particularly in gateway configurations, enhance driver yielding even when baseline compliance is high, though variations across sites highlight the influence of differing roadway contexts and pedestrian environments.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 12:29:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2593953</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Research and Assessment of Needs for Sign Maintenance</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2593930</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) District offices need to verify in-house sign/signal installation and maintenance crews are prepared to implement criteria set forth in the new Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This requires a thorough assessment of each District’s sign and signal crews to identify needs. This evaluation must review crew staffing levels, equipment and material needs, and training schedules. Based on findings of this assessment, KYTC’s sign installation handbook can be updated with best practices for assembling and managing effective sign and signal crews as well as for conducting effective and safe sign maintenance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 11:32:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2593930</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Size of Regulatory and Warning Signs







</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558385</link>
      <description><![CDATA[BACKGROUND - The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all streets, highways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and site roadways open to public travel. Regulatory and warning signs are covered in MUTCD Chapters 2A (Dimensions), 2B (Size of Regulatory Signs), 2C (Size of Warning Signs and Plaques), 6G (Regulatory Sign Design and Size), 6H (Warning Sign Function, Design, and Application), 7B (Design of School Signs), 8B (Sizes of Grade Crossing Signs), 9A (General), 9B (Regulatory Signs), and 9C (Warning Signs and Object Markers). Transportation agencies face challenges with the size of regulatory and warning signs because real-world roadway features do not always clearly match the categories (e.g., conventional, expressway) in the MUTCD tables (e.g., Table 2C-1, Warning Sign and Plaque Sizes). For example, some high-speed roads pass through urban areas without a reduction in speed, which can lead to sign clutter and sign sizes that do not match roadway conditions. These issues can increase costs, create maintenance difficulties, and result in the overuse of larger signs.

Human factors is an applied scientific discipline that tries to enhance the relationship between devices and systems and the people who are meant to use them. As a discipline, human factors approaches system design with the user as its focal point. Human factors research can help address transportation agencies’ challenges with the size of regulatory and warning signs by focusing on how drivers and other road users see and respond to signs. This user-centered approach can provide transportation agencies evidence-based guidance on choosing optimum sign sizes. With this kind of support, states can reduce costs, improve consistency, and make sure regulatory and warning signs are both effective and easy to understand.

Research is needed to incorporate human factors into regulatory and warning signs to help transportation agencies select optimum sign sizes.

OBJECTIVE - The objective of this research is to provide guidance for selecting sizes of regulatory and warning signs based on traffic speed and highway context, considering human factors. 

Accomplishment of the project objective 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 objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and subaward time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the research objective.

PHASE I – Planning and Method Development: (Task 1) Conduct a literature review of relevant research and the current state of the practice for the size of regulatory and warning signs, including existing sign manufacturing practice, text legibility, oversize sign usage, and effectiveness of larger signs. The review shall include published and unpublished research conducted by U.S. and international public- and private-sector organizations. Synthesize the literature review and the current state of the practice to identify knowledge gaps and opportunities related to the size of regulatory and warning signs. (Task 2) Propose a method to achieve the research objective that includes human factors testing. The method shall consider: (1) Sign sizes that can be used with engineering judgment based on constraints (e.g., budgetary, available space) and context (e.g., urban, rural, single lane); (2) Roadway functional classification; (3) Operating and posted speed; (4) Conspicuity of larger regulatory and warning signs;
(5) Impact of sign color and contrast. 

The proposed guidance for sizes of regulatory and warning signs must consider at minimum: (1) Language and tables for MUTCD Chapters 2A (Dimensions), 2B (Size of Regulatory Signs), 2C (Size of Warning Signs and Plaques), 6G (Regulatory Sign Design and Size), 6H (Warning Sign Function, Design, and Application), 7B (Design of School Signs), 8B (Sizes of Grade Crossing Signs), 9A (General), 9B (Regulatory Signs), and 9C (Warning Signs and Object Markers); (2) Sizes of text and symbols; (3) Definitions for high speed, low speed, expressway, conventional, urban, rural, single lane, and multilane; (4) Definitions for roadway context that identify the minimum size selection; (5) 
Definitions for the sign classification categories; (6) The importance of functional classification and speed, including which one takes precedence. (Task 3) Prepare an annotated outline for draft language for consideration by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to incorporate the research results in the next update of the MUTCD. (Task 4) Prepare Interim Report No. 1 to document Tasks 1 through 3 and provide an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. 

PHASE II – Method Execution: (Task 5) Execute the method developed in Tasks 3 and 4 according to the approved Interim Report No. 1. (Task 6) Prepare Interim Report No. 2 to document Task 5. This interim report shall include an updated work plan for Phase III.

PHASE III – Final Deliverables: (Task 7) Prepare draft language for consideration by the FHWA to incorporate the research results in the next update of the MUTCD (hereafter called the MUTCD Deliverable). Note: The MUTCD Deliverable is due at least 6 months before the subaward end date to allow for review and revisions. (Task 8) Prepare final deliverables, including: (1) The MUTCD Deliverable; (2) A final research report documenting the entire research effort, findings, and guidance for sizes of regulatory and warning signs; (3) Recommended future research; (4) A technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” that includes plans for future model deployment (see Special Note L); (5) A PowerPoint presentation with speaker notes summarizing the project and clearly illustrating how the results can be applied.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 14:05:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558385</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Compliance and Best Practices for Pavement Markings</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2244520</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In August 2022, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a new rule in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) establishing minimum retroreflectivity values for longitudinal pavement markings. Under the new rule, states have four years to develop a pavement marking maintenance method and six years to replace pavement markings that fail to meet the new minimum retroreflectivity values. Pavement markers are key components of pavement markings. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) is currently migrating to plastic inlaid markers (PIMs) from traditional snow-plowable raised pavement markers (SPRMs) on new and resurfaced roads. During this transition, KYTC and contractors are facing challenges related to durability, material availability, equipment needs, staffing/training needs, and the maintenance requirements required to prevent marker dislodgement. This project will identify roads subject to the new pavement marking requirements and investigate methods to assess compliance with new retroreflectivity minimums.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2023 08:49:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2244520</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Choosing Locations for Installation of Pedestrian Crossing Signs and Safety Measures at Non-signalized Intersections (Phase II)</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1881796</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Numbers of pedestrians crossing streets at non-signalized locations, particularly in suburban areas have been increasing but since the Covid-19 pandemic, numbers of people walking for exercise and fun has increased exponentially.  Safety of pedestrians sharing street crossings with automobiles has become increasingly problematic as numbers of pedestrian crossings have increased.  A variety of signs and sign configurations are allowed by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).  Guidance provided by the MUTCD regarding types of signs and particularly mounting locations for pedestrian crossing signs at non-signalized intersections is sparse.  A recent study of signage for unsignalized pedestrian crossings by the research team showed potentially significant impact of signage location on likelihood of automobile compliance.

The objective of this project is to identify optimal locations for signage at unsignalized pedestrian crossing locations, as well as, optimal signage configurations. The proposed work will address at least two CAMMSE research thrusts: Generate innovations in multi-modal planning and modeling for high-growth regions; and Innovations to improve multi-modal connections, system integration and security.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:45:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1881796</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SPR-4537: Speed Management on Freeways in Transition Zones between Rural and Urban Conditions</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1722748</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This project will recommend speed reduction treatments to apply in interstate transition zones from rural to urban conditions. The conditions which may affect the speed reducing effectiveness of alternative solutions will be identified to promote the most promising combination of treatments. The results will also help coordinate police enforcement activities within the INDOT-ISP collaboration program. Wording will be prepared to include in the Indiana MUTCD and the Indiana design manual, as needed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:51:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1722748</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Support for AASHTO Committees and Councils. Support for Review of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Notice of Proposed Amendments (NPA)</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1671382</link>
      <description><![CDATA[It is expected that the FHWA will soon release an NPA for the next MUTCD. Because of federal requirements, the FHWA cannot specify an exact date or release any information on the content until the NPA is actually released. It is also expected that the review period will be fairly short (3-4 months) though this is also uncertain.
 
The AASHTO Committee on Traffic Engineering (the Committee) has traditionally taken the lead for AASHTO’s review of MUTCD NPAs. This is an important responsibility since changes can have significant safety and financial impacts on DOTs. This review involves hundreds of DOT staff (thousands of hours of time) and numerous web conferences in a very short period of time.
 
The objectives of this effort were to provide administrative and technical support to the Committee in the review of the NPA and to prepare a concise summary of the issues important to state DOTs.
 
The Committee will use the summary to prepare a recommended AASHTO response to the NPA. The due date for the summary will be determined based on the NPA due date, the schedule for action by the Committee, and the schedule for action by AASHTO leadership.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:22:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1671382</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SPR-4318: Installation and Maintenance of Raised Pavement Markers at State Transportation Agencies" Synthesis of Current Practices</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1603310</link>
      <description><![CDATA[IThis synthesis study will contact a review of practices used by State Transportation agencies regarding preparation for and installation of snowplowable raised pavement markers, and will identify key strategies for maintaining and improving the functionality of such markers. The deliverable will be a report describing these practices, and guidelines, based on professional judgement, about appropriate practices for consideration by INDOT.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2019 13:51:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1603310</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Traffic Control Device (TCD) Consortium</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1492967</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this project is to assemble a consortium composed of regional, State, local entities, appropriate organizations and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in order to (1) establish a systematic procedure to select, test, and evaluate approaches to novel traffic control device (TCD) concepts as well as incorporation of results into the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD); (2) select novel TCD approaches to test and evaluate; (3) determine methods of evaluation for novel TCD approaches; (4) initiate and monitor projects intended to address evaluation of the novel TCDs; (5) disseminate results; and (6) assist MUTCD incorporation and implementation of results.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2017 11:34:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1492967</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Fostering Innovation in Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Pooled Fund Study</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1475618</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The overall goals for this Transportation Pooled Fund (TPF) study are to:  (1) provide answers to emerging questions about innovative facility design, planning, and implementation to improve safety and mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists; (2) conduct effective and efficient research of innovative traffic control devices to accelerate their incorporation into the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD); (3) facilitate the collection and reporting of robust transportation facility data that will allow for updating Federal, State, local, and other design guidelines, such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design guides; and (4) support research on addressing rural multimodal transportation needs, regulatory streamlining, opportunities to improve cost effectiveness and efficiencies in the transportation system, and multimodal investment analysis.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 23 Jul 2017 14:46:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1475618</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Impacts of Connected Vehicles and Automated Vehicles on State and Local Transportation Agencies--Task-Order Support. Impacts of Connected and Automated Vehicle Technologies on the Highway Infrastructure</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1467505</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Given that vehicle technologies are advancing faster than ever, there is a growing need to better understand how and when traditional highway and street infrastructure may be affected. Some agencies are starting to question the value of maintaining signs, roadside hardware, and other key physical highway infrastructure (because such infrastructure might not be needed in the future). Agencies are also questioning whether the design of roadways, pavements, structures, and work zones will be affected as connected and automated vehicle technologies are deployed. 

In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released Automated Driving Systems (ADS): A Vision for Safety 2.0 (https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-automated-driving-systems-guidance) which “calls for industry, state and local governments, safety and mobility advocates and the public to lay the path for the deployment of automated vehicles and technologies.” That document encourages states to “maintain a good state of infrastructure design, operation, and maintenance that supports ADS deployment and to adhere to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)….” State and local transportation agencies need guidance on what will constitute a good state of design, operation, and maintenance.

The objective of this research was to produce guidance for state and local transportation agencies in evaluating and—if necessary—adapting their standards and practices for roadway and intelligent transportation system designs (including traffic control devices) and related maintenance and operations to reflect the deployment of connected and automated vehicle technologies. 

This research approach consisted of five main tasks and its respective sub-tasks to develop in-depth findings from the technological, policy, and deployment aspects of integrating these new elements into the nation’s future transportation ecosystem. This research produces guidance that considers trends and timelines in the development and deployment of various connected and automated driving technologies (primarily Society of Automotive Engineers [SAE] Levels 2 and 3, with some consideration of Level 4), including sensor systems and the increasing role of digital infrastructure and connectivity. The guidance describes how changes in standards and practices could advance agency goals while considering the effects on transportation agency resources. It also suggests approaches to foster collaboration between the public and private sectors to develop and advance needed standards and practices, including data access and sharing. State and local transportation agencies; IOOs; policy, regulatory, standards organizations; and other industry stakeholders in the AV and CV ecosystem are the intended audience for this report.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2017 10:17:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1467505</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Guide for Roundabouts</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1466747</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Since its publication in 2010, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition, has served as a national guide on the different aspects of roundabouts, including planning, analysis, design, and construction.  Also during this period, technology changes have taken place, substantial research on the different aspects of roundabouts has been performed, and many roundabouts have been constructed.  This research and experience gained from these projects has produced many relevant findings and lessons learned.  However, additional research is needed to address the gaps in available roundabout guidance and incorporate the relevant technology, the findings of the new and earlier research, and the lessons learned from the constructed projects into a guide for roundabouts.  This guide will provide updated information and guidance on all aspects of roundabouts and help highway agencies and other organizations address relevant issues when considering the planning and implementation of roundabouts.
  
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to develop a guide that will serve as the primary source for guidance on all aspects of roundabouts.  The guide will supersede NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, and other available guidance on roundabouts.

]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2017 10:44:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1466747</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Assessing the Safety Issues Associated with Isolated Rural Intersections</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1455578</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Due to the relatively low traffic volumes on many rural high-speed roadways roads, it is often not cost-effective to upgrade the roads and not warranted to implement active traffic control devices such as traffic lights to improve safety at intersections and sometimes it may be even counterproductive. However, vehicles traveling on these roadways generally have high speeds and, thus, tend to have relatively more severe injuries when vehicle crashes do occur. In addition, many rural roadways also have high truck volumes and suffer from truck-related safety issues. Although local communities with problematic isolated intersections request traffic signals be installed, often these intersections do not meet the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) traffic signal warrants. Furthermore, the placement of a traffic signal at an isolated signal can also create a driver expectancy issue for the traveling public. The purpose of this research is to compile crash and operational data and perform a comprehensive assessment of the risk factors and root causes of crashes involving rural intersections, prioritize the risk factors, identify and evaluate safety countermeasures, and recommend the most effective, low-cost countermeasures for safety promotion.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:45:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1455578</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Warrant Development for Signalization of Superstreet Intersections with Two or Three Approaches</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1423761</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Regional traffic engineers are often faced with the decision of whether to signalize non-standard intersections, but unfortunately guidance for this decision is currently lacking both in North Carolina and nationally. While signal warrants for standard intersections in the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), such as crash experience or coordinated signal systems, can be applied to any intersection geometry, volume specific warrants assume a four-legged intersection with vehicles approaching from each leg. This assumption cannot be applied to intersections such as superstreets (also known as synchronized streets), directional crossovers, or the meeting of two one way streets, where not every leg has both originating and receiving lanes. Without a defensible method for determining signalization needs at all intersections, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) may be vulnerable to accusations of inefficiencies (when an unwarranted signal is installed) on the one hand or lack of safety concern (when a warranted signal is not installed) on the other. By developing and adopting a warrant for signalization of superstreet intersections with two or three approaches, NCDOT will be able to provide guidance and support to traffic engineers in their decision making process.  
The development of the warrant will be accomplished through the proposed tasks including a review of literature, survey of NCDOT practices as well as those around the country, and collection of data at superstreets and directional crossovers. After developing and validating the basis for the warrant, the research team will work to disseminate this information to NCDOT, municipal, and private sector interests.  This is to ensure that the new warrants are understood statewide, should the warrant be accepted and implemented by NCDOT. Given the prevalence of superstreets nationally, and the lack of warrants of this kind, the research team will also provide NCDOT with a proposal which can be submitted to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for possible inclusion in the MUTCD. The results of this research should be practice-ready and allow NCDOT to directly implement the research products into day-to-day activities. 
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:26:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1423761</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Driving Simulator Study of Merge Signs</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1372824</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Many work zones require lane closures, and road users need to be notified of these closures through appropriate upstream signage. A literature review prepared for this study found several previous investigations indicating insufficient comprehension of the U.S. standard lane closure sign (designated in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways [MUTCD] as W4-2) and similar signs used internationally. The W4-2 sign is also unsuitable for signing interior lane closures on roadways with three or more lanes.

Driver comprehension of several alternative sign faces was tested through a survey using the ANSI Z535.3 process and was followed by a driving simulator study. The driver comprehension survey suggests that an Upward Drop Arrow design is a promising alternative to the existing W4-2 sign for sites where two upstream lanes are reduced to one lane in the work zone. In addition, one-arrow-per-lane signs developed as Americanized versions of the Vienna Convention G12a sign template are a promising option for interior lane closures on multi-lane roadway segments.

A driving simulator study compared the W4-2, a MERGE text sign with a horizontal arrow, and an Americanized version of the Vienna Convention G12a sign. In terms of sign comprehension, the W4-2 was the least understood of the three signs. The W4-2 resulted in more late merge maneuvers than the other two signs. Field evaluation of the Upward Drop Arrow and Americanized G12a signs is recommended as a follow-up to this study.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:29:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1372824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>