<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>Research Strategic Plan</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2640692</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Research wants to develop a Strategic Research and Process Improvement Plan. The plan will support MoDOT’s mission, values, and tangible results and improve the effectiveness of the program. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 09:23:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2640692</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Year 2 Administrative Support
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2628220</link>
      <description><![CDATA[No abstract provided.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 14:29:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2628220</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Administrative Activities - University Transportation Centers Open Competition
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2627810</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This grant will provide interested students with a chance to gain a better understanding of transportation, by supporting their attendance and participation in technical conferences related to transportation. This grant will also support technology transfer activities to support the overall Kansas University/Mid-America Transportation Center (KU MATC) award as well as administrative tasks.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 14:13:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2627810</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Noteworthy Practices Performing MPO Administrative Functions</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2313953</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This project seeks to identify the various methods and systems used by Florida’s 27 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to carry out various administrative functions including progress reporting and federal reimbursement, services and tangible goods procurement, grant and contract management, office and facilities management, and personnel management. The research objectives include: (1) Documenting current federal and state requirements for MPO administrative functions through a review of relevant regulatory and guidance documents. (2) Documenting current national MPO administrative practices through a targeted review of available literature using publicly available national databases. (3) Documenting Florida MPO administrative practices and processes. (4) Documenting noteworthy practices for MPO administrative practices within Florida, practices that are efficient and effective and achieve desired outcomes and which could serve as examples for MPOs across Florida. (5) Developing clear suggestions for improved MPO administrative practices and processes across the state, focusing on those practices that will give Florida MPOs a framework for efficiently and effectively managing their administrative and workforce-related tasks.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2024 15:03:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2313953</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Review and Update of ACRP Administration and Human Resources Products</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2204220</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine provide independent, objective advice to inform policy with evidence, spark progress and innovation, and confront challenging issues for the benefit of society. The work of the private, nonprofit National Academies is grounded in the expertise of our three academies — National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and National Academy of Medicine. For more information about the Academies, please visit our website at:  www.nationalacademies.org.

The National Academies consists of seven program units, one of which is the Transportation Research Board (TRB). Established in 1920, TRB annually engages more than 7,000 engineers, scientists, and transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and the academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest by participating in TRB committees, panels, and task forces. One program unit within TRB is the Cooperative Research Programs, which includes the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP). ACRP provides products developed from applied research for the U.S. airport industry. Recognizing the dynamic nature of the industry, a key goal of ACRP is to ensure our products continue to be relevant by updating them as needed.  As ACRP matured and our library of products grew, the need for a systematic method for identifying the products with the greatest need for updating became apparent.

ACRP research is generally categorized into 10 research fields. To meet a key goal of the ACRP Strategic Plan, the ACRP oversight committee approved and funded the development of a systematic method to identify and prioritize research products in need of an update. A methodology (https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/docs/Product_Update_Review_Methodology.pdf) for reviewing the products in each field was developed in 2020 while reviewing the products in Research Field 2: Environment. 

The objective of this RFP is to identify a qualified firm to review and recommend an initial set of products for updating within Research Field 1: Administration and Research Field 6: Human Resources. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 02 Jul 2023 19:13:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2204220</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Synthesis of Information Related to Airport Practices. Topic S01-27. State of Airport Loyalty Programs</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1897245</link>
      <description><![CDATA[ACRP Synthesis 131: State of Airport Loyalty Programs, from TRB's Airport Cooperative Research Program, provides a comprehensive overview of the current status of U.S. airport loyalty programs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:18:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1897245</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>MCTI Administration </title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1747072</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Missouri Center for Transportation Innovation (MCTI) is a partnership between Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) and the 4 University Campuses: Columbia, KC, St. Louis, and Missouri S&T.  MoDOT and the University of Missouri System (UMS) have a long-standing, collegial relationship in working on transportation problems together, leading to local and national impact. This relationship includes MoDOT funding of sponsored research projects, MoDOT projects serving as center matching funds, access to field demonstration projects and test sections, educational programs, scholarships, and internships. However, the administration of research funding to universities is a significant burden on MoDOT, along with the transfer of technology across Missouri and beyond. In addition, the lack of streamlined, highly coordinated research efforts have, at times, led to MoDOT research dollars flowing out of Missouri, and to redundancies with other national efforts. Following the practice of other states, this center is a collaboration to move transportation research forward in Missouri.  This administrative funding will help MoDOT with some of the administrative duties such as tracking project process and report editing and 508 compliance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:58:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1747072</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Guide to Developing a Culture of Innovation at Airports</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1645862</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Adjusting to and planning for the ever-changing airport environment is increasingly difficult. Big data is revolutionizing airport business models, the connected traveler has more control than ever over their journey, and airport concessions/retail are constantly testing new business paradigms. These are just a few examples of the changes facing airport operators. To respond, airports need new innovative options; new products and services that balance the needs of passengers and airport-wide stakeholders; new ideas that tackle the technocentric challenges of information, communication, and technology; and new strategies that result in differences that matter and provide a sense of purpose that engage everyone affected by them.  
Changing airport culture can be challenging when leveraging innovative ideas. Every airport has a different view of innovation within their existing culture. Innovation can be visionary, it can help solve a specific problem, or take advantage of opportunities that come from all levels of the organization or even the airport customers. The success of a culture of innovation should start with executive management and requires buy-in throughout the organization. Key questions related to innovation include: What is your airport trying to achieve? What are the organizational goals? Does your airport have an innovative culture and the resources to become innovative? Are you incentivizing employees to be innovative and rewarding them for this behavior? What does an innovation team look like at an airport?  
Airport teams are ramping up innovation labs, centers, and executive level positions to support critical thinking, strategy, and innovation. Airports need an approach to innovation that is powerful, effective, and broadly assessable; that can integrate into all aspects of the business and region; and that individuals and teams can use to generate breakthrough ideas that have a meaningful impact in the aviation industry. A culture of innovation will help all aspects of an airport’s business, to include but not limited to: planning, design, and construction of new facilities; customer experience; security; operational efficiency; and revenue generation. The implementation of these tools will help make an organization fit for the future. The objective of this research is to provide a guide toward fostering and sustaining a culture of innovation within the airport environment.  As part of this objective, there must be a plan for disseminating and facilitating the use of this guide.  
The guide should be applicable to all airports and provide, at a minimum: (1) internal and external stakeholders with a practical understanding of what a culture of innovation is and demonstrate why it is important in an airport; (2) an effective means of collaboration among stakeholders and other opportunities for information sharing; (3) implementable strategies for identifying and surmounting barriers, for staff at all levels, for developing a culture of innovation as well as channeling and sustaining its efforts; (4) specific examples for staff and leaders of measures and tools they can use to assess and report the outcomes desired and benefits realized through innovation both within the organization and outside it; and (5) case studies from both aviation and non-aviation organizations with real-world examples of drivers/triggers for innovation, the process that took place to facilitate that innovation, the impact, and sustained outcome to their environment.  
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2019 22:10:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1645862</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Emergency Response: Organizational and Operational Models Used by State DOTs</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1628625</link>
      <description><![CDATA[NCHRP Research Report 1088: State DOT Models for Organizing and Operating Emergency Response: A Guide presents state-of-the-art information to assist state departments of transportation (DOTs) in the assessment of emergency response programs in foundational governance, programmatic planning and support, and building capacity for response for emergency surges. The Guide provides models that illustrate choices DOTs have made among a wide range of organizational and operational dimensions. The Guide also presents case studies of solutionsDOTs have implemented across many organizational and operational facets, from specialized capacities, such as strike teams or mobile equipment teams, to integration of emergency management with security functions to close teaming of emergency management operations with Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO). The Guide is designed for new and experienced practitioners alike to use immediately as they fulfill their agency’s emergency response incident and event management responsibilities.

State DOTs continually develop and hone all-hazards emergency response procedures and protocols. They are adept at responding to a range of emergencies and incidents and fulfilling their federal responsibilities—namely Emergency Support Function (ESF) #1 – Transportation responsibilities, such as emergency access and evacuation support identified in FEMA’s National Response Framework. Organizational structure can and does make a difference in the effectiveness of emergency response and related emergency activities and initiatives. As noted in AASHTO’s 2017 publication, Understanding Transportation Resilience: A 2016–2018 Roadmap for Security, Emergency Management, and Infrastructure Protection in Transportation Resilience, emergency management is an essential component of resilience, but the current organizational frameworks may not be ideal. A gap was identified in the research relating to recommended state DOT operational and organizational models for emergency response. The importance of the topic, types of actions and related responsibilities, anddesired outcomes had been identified, but research was needed on ways that state DOTs organize themselves for effectively participating in emergency response.

Under NCHRP Project 20-128, “Emergency Response: Organizational and Operational Models Used by State DOTs,” WSP USA Inc. was asked to investigate and document how state DOTs use different organizational and operational models to fulfill their emergency response incident and event management responsibilities within the context of FEMA’s National Planning Frameworks for prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery. In addition to this report, NCHRP Web-Only Document 378: Emergency Response: Organizational and Operational Models Used by State DOTs, a PowerPoint summary of the Guide, and a Pocket Guide on organizational essentials are available on the National Academies Press website (nap.nationalacademies.org) by searching for NCHRP Research Report 1088.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2019 16:41:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1628625</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SPR-4353: Central HMA Acceptance Lab Process Improvement Project</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1592205</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The INDOT Office of Materials Management team goal for this project is to improve organization, flow of work and efficiency in the central region HMA Acceptance Lab for all tests done. The research team will develop work flow diagrams using a process called Value Stream Mapping working with INDOT employees that work in the HMA Lab to document the current processes and then develop improved processes. We will then make an Action Plan to achieve the improved processes.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:28:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1592205</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Administration of the JAMS-AMTAS FAA Center of Excellence</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1532646</link>
      <description><![CDATA[No abstract provided.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2018 10:46:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1532646</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Port City Challenges</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1400840</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This research seeks to validate the application of Commercial Remote Sensing &amp;. Spatial Information (CRS&amp;SI) technologies to collect data and provide a multi-user, multi criterion decision-making framework for the development and coordination of e-Navigation technology for the maritime industry with the purpose of improving commercial shipping safety and security. The proposed research includes but is not limited to: (1) The definition and scope of the concept of e-Navigation in terms of its purpose, components and limitations; (2) The identification of the key issues and priorities that will have to be addressed in a strategic vision and a policy framework on e-Navigation and how CRS&amp;SI technologies can be integrated into this strategic vision; (3) The identification of both benefits and obstacles that may arise in the further development of the strategic vision and policy framework; (4) The identification of the roles of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), its Member States, other bodies and industry in such development; and (5) The support, integration and possible development of CRS&amp;SI technologies to assist the maritime industry's efforts at coordination.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2016 01:00:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1400840</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Support Services for Peer Exchanges</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1362118</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This Peer Exchange Project is intended to provide Research Programs with the option to procure services to help with the logistical and administrative aspects of organizing and holding a research, development & technology (RD&T) Peer Exchange, as described under 23 CFR 420.203.  Doing so will allow Research Programs to focus on the content of their peer exchange. The Oregon Department of Transportation (DOT) will contract with a service provider. The service provider will offer a menu of support services including but not limited to the following: (1) making travel and lodging arrangements for peer exchange panel participants; (2) reimbursing travel expenses for peer exchange panel participants; (3) meeting facilitation services including: (a) moderating and facilitating discussion during the peer exchange, (b) working with the host state to help identify activities to support meeting the objectives of the peer exchange, (c) coordinating and scheduling meeting participants, (d) providing a recording secretary to take notes and prepare meeting minutes, and (e) assisting with report preparation; (4) rental of off- site meeting facilities; and (5) catering. Once a vendor is brought on board, any State Research Program (host state) planning a peer exchange may contact the vendor, describe the services they want the vendor to perform, and obtain a price quote. The price quote will largely determine that state's pooled fund contribution.  A project manager will be assigned at Oregon DOT. The host state will contact the project manager with the price quote. The project manager and the lead state will agree on a pooled fund contribution from the host state, based on the price quote plus a small administrative surcharge ($500) retained by Oregon to cover the project manager's time. The host state will then execute a fund transfer to the pooled fund account.  The project manager will execute a work order using the vendor's price quote to the host state as a statement of work. The vendor will perform the services under the direction of the lead state. Issues, changes and disagreements that arise between the vendor and the host state will be coordinated and resolved through the project manager.  After the Peer Exchange has concluded, the vendor will invoice the Oregon Project Manager (copying the host state) for the services provided. The Project Manager will pay the invoice only after review by and concurrence from the host state. Each host state will also be expected to prepare a short report, documenting the value of these services to their Peer Exchange. This information will be used to determine whether there is merit in continuation of these services under a new project number, after this project expires.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2015 01:01:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1362118</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Research for the AASHTO Standing Committee on Public Transportation. Task 62. The National Perspective - An Assessment of Section 5310 Program Administration Under MAP-21</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1345909</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities program has had significant changes implemented under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP 21). These changes have impacted how the program is administered, and therefore, its stakeholders and customers. This research aims to determine how the prescribed changes to the program are being implemented, in particular but not limited to how states and large urbanized areas are administering the program now and how large Urbanized Area (UZA) newly designated recipients are responding. In implementing the program, each state and urbanized area has had to make a number of administrative and program decisions. Documenting and sharing the results of the decisions made may assist as implementation continues and assist in informing potential adjustments to future legislation.  Examples of the questions that might be asked and answered with this research include: (1) Some Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have more than one large UZA within their jurisdiction and have chosen to allow 5310 designated recipient bifurcation. How has this scenario affected program administration for both state transportation departments (DOTs) and the FTA? (2) How are states and the FTA communicating with large and small UZAs and rural areas about transportation coordination? and (3) How are Section 5310 program funds being distributed between local transportation agencies and non-profit organizations under this structure? Have there been impacts to FTA Section 5317 New Freedom projects that are now eligible under the 5310 program - are they getting funded? It might also be useful to document how FTA, DOTs and large UZA designated recipients perceive the success of their implementation decisions to date and which of their administrative approaches they would consider best practices for others. The objective of this research is to inform state and local 5310 agencies and stakeholders of administrative practices used to implement the new program management structure employed by Congress through the FTA under MAP 21. With this information, state and large urban 5310 designated recipients, their local agency/stakeholder peers and perhaps FTA will be able to identify necessary program modifications and/or opportunities. Specifically, the project will promote actions that foster success in meeting the program's current and future administrative structure. The research approach would be guided by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 20-65 panel with the involvement of program stakeholders and administrators of FTA programs at the federal, state and local level.  The following specific research steps are envisioned: Task 1.  Determine the final questions to be asked and answered and best way to capture and review existing 5310 program management practices for rural, small urban, and large urban areas. Question should be approved and finalized by the NCHRP 20-65 Project Panel. Task 2. Survey the full range of program stakeholders/customers (a representative sample of state 5310 designated recipients, large UZA designated recipients, subrecipients, direct recipients, FTA, and other relevant stakeholders) to gain information about their implementation decisions to date, including the results of those decisions and which they would recommend as best practices as well as their perceptions - pre-and post-MAP 21 regarding program management practices and program effectiveness. Task 3. Collect objective data to identify which entities applied for Section 5310 funds for large urbanized areas in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2013/14. Task 4. Collect objective data on which agencies applied for Section 5310 funds in FFY 2012/13. Organize the findings from Tasks 1 through 3. Summarize the findings and compile into a final report.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:01:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1345909</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Research for the AASHTO Standing Committee on Public Transportation. Task 63. DOT Oversight of Facility Projects</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1345908</link>
      <description><![CDATA[State Departments of Transportation (DOT's) continue to play a variety of roles when administering federal and state grant programs. Of particular importance is the implementation and oversight of facility type projects both in initial construction and rehabilitation. A resource is needed for guiding State DOT's and their subrecipients through the implementation, oversight and on-going monitoring role which involves complex and often confusing federal requirements. The objective of this research is to develop a reference guide that may be used by State DOT's and their subrecipients to identify and explain the implementation, oversight and on-going monitoring process of administering grants which involve the rehabilitation and construction of facility projects. The guide should be targeted to the projects generally carried out under small urban and rural systems. This reference guide should address the steps associated with design, land acquisition, construction, change orders, federal reporting and asset monitoring. This would include but not be limited to such topics as the following: (1) Independent cost analysis (ICE); (2) Design and A&amp;E Procurement; (3) Land acquisition; (4) Bid development; (5) Selection and award; (6)  DBE Goals; (7) Progress monitoring; (8) Federal reporting requirements; (9) DBE monitoring; (10) Change orders; (11) Maintenance plans; and (12) On-going monitoring requirements. This task should consider and complement National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Research Results Digest 381 Guidebook for Construction Management Practices for Rural Projects and the research completed and underway in NCHRP 20-65, Task 53, "Independent Cost Estimates for Design and Construction of Rural and Small Urban Transit Facilities". Additionally other research efforts may provide supplemental information which would not need to be considered under this project, but referenced and explained as to how that research would be utilized under this task. It is equally likely that best practices, checklists, and resource materials exist (especially at the state DOT level). The product of this research should be a reference guide to assist State DOT's, not a summary of survey responses. FTA resources of Project and Construction Management Guidelines, and Construction Project Management Handbook may also prove beneficial. An example of such a resource might be laid out similar to FTA's Triennial or State Management Review workbooks which lists subject areas with questions, answers and resource references. The reference guide should include clear and concise language intended for the general user, not be so technical that it would require special training or knowledge of project and construction management. The primary audience for this reference guide will have limited knowledge in this area so terms and practices should be clearly defined.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:01:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1345908</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>