<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>Legal Implications for Permitting Airport Service Providers</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625810</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Airlines and other airport aeronautical tenants often contract with airport service providers, or third party contractors, for a variety of services that are integral to their operations, including ground handling (above and below the wing,) aircraft cabin cleaning, catering, etc. Many of these third party contractors do not have a direct contractual relationship with the airport operator, but serve one or more of the airport’s aeronautical tenants. Airport operators take varying approaches to addressing risk associated with the activities of these service providers, which can range from hands-off to complex permitting programs and everything in between. Whether the airport relies on agreements with the aeronautical tenants receiving the third-party services by issuing permits to third party contractors, imposing rules and regulations, etc., each approach poses different legal issues and potential liability.

OBJECTIVE: The report will discuss the different approaches for addressing risk to the airport operator when permitting airport aeronautical tenants to contract with airport service providers, and the legal implications related to indeminifciation, insurance rquirements, operating standards, and other approaches for managing risk. While the legal implications of permitting airport aeronautical tenants to contract with airport service providers, or third-party contractors, are multifaceted, and the report will focus on the relationship between the airport service proivder and the airport operator. The report should include examples  of the different approaches used in the industry, with sample language from contracts, permits, rules & regulations, etc.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 14:57:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625810</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Airside Planning, Design, Construction, Operations, and Maintenance: WebResource</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1645869</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The technical documentation on airside planning, design, construction, operations, and maintenance is vast.  This documentation includes ACRP and non-ACRP materials, such as federal and state regulations and guidance, ICAO publications, association handbooks, as well as industry codes, standards, and practices.  These resources provide valuable benefits to airport industry practitioners who design and operate airside facilities, but some of these references are either not well known or often are not easily accessible.  An online index of these resources, similar to other recently produced ACRP WebResources, would provide the airport community with the means to assess its relevancy and readily access this needed information.

The objectives of this research are to: (1) Create an ACRP WebResource of documents and other references related to airside planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance applicable to the U.S. airport industry.  Resources should include, but not be limited to the following functional components: Airspace, ATC, Navaids, and supporting facilities (e.g., RPZs and approach zones); Airfield/movement areas (e.g., runways, taxiways, markings, signage, and lighting systems); Non-movement areas (e.g., markings, signage, lighting systems, hangars, apron areas and taxilanes); and Airside support facilities and equipment (e.g., ARFF, deicing, field maintenance, ground run-up enclosures or areas (GRE), fuel farms). (2) Identify which of the related ACRP documents and publications should be updated and potentially what new ACRP-related research could be developed and create appropriate problem statements for future consideration. (3)  Develop a range of alternative processes and recommendations for keeping the WebResource updated. 
The audience for this research is the airport practitioner, including airport staff, planners, engineers, designers, developers, facilities personnel, academicians, and students. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2019 22:22:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1645869</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Update to ACRP Report 40: Airport Roadway Analysis and Curbside Congestion Management Strategies</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1645873</link>
      <description><![CDATA[ACRP Report 40: Airport Curbside and Terminal Area Roadway Operations was published in 2010.  In the 10 years since it was published, the inception of ride sharing services has brought a paradigm shift, not only to the airport curb but to society in general.  Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) demonstrated the effectiveness of peer-to-peer mobile services so much so that new services are embracing this same model.  There are both opportunities and challenges in managing the different types of traditional and disruptive ground transportation service providers.  Uncertainty about the nature and timing of future disruptive ground transportation services will likely complicate airport planning activities. The focus of ACRP Report 40 was on data gathering and analysis, but did not explicitly address planning, modifying, and operating roadways and curbsides to achieve maximum efficiency, safety, security, and customer service.  Curbs must accommodate various modes of access/egress, ranging from single occupant vehicles to large buses while accommodating important security issues at terminal curbsides.  Since the cost of adding curb can be significant (e.g., adding a second level), airports would benefit from identifying best practices for curb management (e.g., access prioritization, tolling, etc.) to increase existing capacity.   
Finally, airports are placing more of a focus on the customer experience.  At the same time, passenger traffic continues to grow.  Many airports are already experiencing significant congestion on their roadways and at the curb, often because of geographic location or land use constraints.  These two realities can be in conflict with each other and it has become challenging to expand the capacity of landside facilities to meet current and future demand while maintaining an acceptable level of customer service. 

The objectives of this research are to produce a guidebook that is a thorough, user-friendly update of ACRP Report 40: Airport Curbside and Terminal Area Roadway Operations by (a) publishing an updated text based on the original guidebook; (b) reviewing and updating the associated analysis tools, including the Quick Analysis Tool for Airport Roadways (QATAR), for currency, relevance, and usability; (c) incorporating new information on recently implemented ground transportation services (e.g., TNCs, peer-to-peer services, etc.); (d) discussing how airports can anticipate future services (e.g., autonomous vehicles and other disruptive technologies) and design flexible landside spaces to accommodate those services; and (e) identifying scalable strategies for traffic demand and congestion management. 
Scalable strategies for traffic demand and congestion management, must, at a minimum address: policy and regulatory issues, typical peak vs. irregular operations traffic demand, stakeholder engagement and possible political issues, and operational techniques and new technology being used by airports and ground transportation service providers. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2019 21:51:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1645873</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Technology Assessment to Improve Operations Counts at Non-towered Airports</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1503752</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Airport operations counts are an essential input into airport development planning.  This includes forecast development, facility requirements, identifying proposed development, and environmental processing.  However, data availability and reliability is often limited at non-towered airports.  While the airport manager may have an estimate of total operations, the correlation of the manual counts to actual operations is unknown.  Further, the airport counts usually do not have information on the make and model of aircraft operations at the airport, which is needed for critical aircraft determinations.

FAA Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS) currently provides reliable counts by aircraft type for both towered and non-towered airports, which have airborne FAA radar surveillance, using IFR flight plan information and correlated radar track data.  However, because VFR flights do not file flight plans, the system does not count VFR flights.  VFR flights are therefore a primary gap in establishing accurate operations counts at non-towered airports.

The purpose of this research is to mature the development of simple, cost-effective technologies that an airport could deploy on its airfield to generate accurate, detailed operational counts.  The research will leverage prior work that assessed the viability of using aircraft transponder data (Mode A/C, Mode S, ADS-B) to count operations at airports.  This research supports the recommendations of ACRP Report 129, Evaluating Methods for Counting Aircraft Operations at Non-Towered Airports, to investigate promising counting technologies that can be used at an airport year-round, thus mitigating issues with sampling errors.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:48:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1503752</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Strategic Decision Support for Airport Capacity Planning</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1401982</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Airside performance at major airports is affected by a large number of interacting factors in three major spheres of airside activity: (1) airport operations control (AOC), (2) maintenance services, and (3) air traffic control (ATC). AOC is responsible for assignment of preferred parking sections (with associated terminal gates). It is also responsible for sending planes to alternative parking spots when there is not a gate available in the preferred section for an arriving aircraft. Maintenance personnel provide turnaround services and deploy tractors for pushbacks at gates and for airlines that require such service. ATC determines how runways are used for arrivals and departures according to wind conditions and coordinates aircraft traffic for safe operation. Smooth operation requires close cooperation among these three spheres of activity. In this report, we describe a discrete-event simulation model and supporting analytical tools designed to help airport planners, operations directors, and air traffic control specialists collaborate in maximizing airside performance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:32:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1401982</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Guidelines for Risk Analysis in Construction Contract Changes</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1231052</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This project will produce a guide for Alaska Department of Transportation (AKDOT) managers and engineers that will prepare them for negotiations regarding risks incurred when forward pricing a change order. It features seminars for AKDOT managers and engineers to review the guide. Changes are common in construction contracts. It is usually in the owner's best interest to forward price the change, that is, to negotiate a lump sum price for the changed work before the changed work starts. These negotiations are fundamentally asymmetric, since the costs being negotiated are those of the contractor and the contactor is the expert on his own costs; the actual costs will accrue to the contractor. Although the goal of both parties is a fair and reasonable price, and the owner's engineers are familiar with basic costs and estimating procedures, the owner also realizes that there are uncertainties that must be accounted for in the price. Since a firm lump sum price will pass all the reasonably foreseeable risks of the changed work to the contractor, the contractor must be compensated for assuming these risks. Risks include delays to the work and impacts related to the effect of the change on the contractor's planned operations. In addition, Alaska's extreme seasonality and often the remoteness of the project increase the risks of extending projects into the following year, with severe direct cost consequences for a second mobilization, but also indirect consequences for the contractor's staffing and bonding capacity for other projects in the following year. The guide will open with a brief overview of the change process and standard estimating procedures, then examine risks commonly considered when contemplating changes, and then examine risks that are often issues in Alaska transportation construction. The next section of the guide will provide analysis of these risks, and demonstrate common software tools used and provide working examples. Of course full training on the software is beyond the scope of the guide, but the methods of software analysis and how they are utilized will be described in the guide. Notes on two software packages often used to analyze claims and on a program used to analyze risk will be included in an appendix. After the seminar, and by referring to the guide, AKDOT project managers and project engineers should be better prepared for negotiations regarding changes and better able to make fair and reasonable offers to contractors.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 14:11:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1231052</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>