<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>Cost Recovery for New Entrant Aircraft Technologies</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2772541</link>
      <description><![CDATA[As new entrant aircraft technologies begin to emerge, airports face new questions regarding how to recover the costs associated with supporting these operations. Many airports currently recover a portion of their operating costs through fuel flowage fees, but alternative propulsion technologies, including electric, hydrogen, and hybrid aircraft, may require different cost recovery approaches. Airports also need to consider costs associated with infrastructure, charging or fueling systems, lease agreements, and other facilities and services needed to support these aircraft. Research is needed to identify practical and equitable approaches that airports can use to recover costs associated with supporting new entrant aircraft technologies as aircraft propulsion systems and related infrastructure needs evolve.

The objective of this research is to develop guidance on cost recovery approaches for new entrant aircraft technologies. The research should examine cost recovery mechanisms for alternative propulsion technologies, including electric, hydrogen, and hybrid aircraft, and address airport approaches to recovering costs associated with infrastructure, charging or fueling systems, lease agreements, facilities, and other services needed to support these aircraft. The resulting guidance should provide airports with practical approaches that can be adapted to different airport operating environments and emerging aircraft technologies.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 08:27:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2772541</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Full Closure Versus Lane Closures for Freeway Maintenance
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2763062</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Freeway maintenance projects are essential but challenging operations that often entail significant safety risks, high costs, and traffic disruptions. In North Carolina, most freeway maintenance is performed using the lane closure option, where one or more lanes are closed and traffic is routed through remaining lanes or shoulders. A second option is a full closure, which shuts down the entire roadway (in one direction or both) and detours traffic via alternate routes. Each option has trade-offs: full closures can accelerate construction and enhance worker safety by removing traffic from the work zone, but they inconvenience motorists with detours; partial closures allow some traffic through, reducing detour impacts, but prolong the work and expose workers and drivers to work zone hazards. Currently, guidance on when to choose full closure versus lane closures is limited, leaving engineers to make case-by-case judgments without a consistent framework. Given the stakes, a data-driven approach is needed to optimize closure decisions.
This proposal outlines a two-year, research project to investigate the safety, construction cost, and operational impacts of full closures versus lane closures for freeway maintenance. The primary focus is traffic safety: understanding how full closures (with detoured traffic) compare to partial closures (with live traffic in a work zone) in terms of crash risk for motorists and workers. Secondary objectives include quantifying construction cost and time differences and assessing operational impacts such as traffic delay and rerouting effects, using practical analysis methods (avoiding the need for full regional traffic modeling). The ultimate goal is to develop guidance for North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to use when determining whether to use full closure or lane closures. This guidance will directly help NCDOT staff (both at the Division level and central offices) plan maintenance projects that minimize total harm (safety and mobility impacts) while maximizing efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
To achieve these objectives, the research team will: (1) review national and international literature and practices on work zone closure strategies, with emphasis on safety outcomes; (2) collect and analyze relevant data from past projects (in North Carolina and other states) to compare crash rates, work durations, and costs under different closure approaches; and (3) perform targeted operational analyses (e.g. using deterministic models or simplified traffic analysis tools) to estimate delays and diversion impacts without full-scale regional simulation.
Significance: By focusing first on safety, this research will fill a critical gap. For example, while it is intuitively safer for workers to have no traffic in the work zone (full closure), questions remain about the overall safety impact once detour routes are considered. Preliminary evidence from other states is mixed but informative: some full closure implementations have been associated with improved safety for both workers and travelers (and even lower overall crash rates on alternate routes), while others note the importance of careful detour planning to mitigate increased exposure of local roads to additional traffic and associated safety risks. By systematically studying these impacts and also evaluating cost and mobility outcomes, this project will produce actionable guidance. The products will include a final report and a concise guideline document that NCDOT can circulate among engineers and project managers. An implementation plan is built into the project to ensure the guidelines are effectively communicated (through workshops or webinars) and pilot-tested on a real project scenario. The outcome will empower NCDOT to make well-informed decisions that improve work zone safety, minimize traveler inconvenience, save money, and expedite project delivery.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 17:20:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2763062</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Identifying Precipitation Variability in Georgia 
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2719329</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The primary objectives of this research project are to provide scientific evidence to support Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) in choosing the correct scenario for each of the regions to reduce the risk of constructing drainage structures and a case study that explores how future rainfall conditions might impact construction costs if increases in precipitation are identified.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 11:52:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2719329</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Improving Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) of Pavements with Geosynthetics Used as Separators with Real Life-Cycle Cost Data</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2712204</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is widely used to compare pavement design alternatives and evaluate long-term economic efficiency. Geosynthetics have been widely used in flexible pavements as separator layers between the base, subbase, and subgrade to improve long-term pavement performance and extend service life. LCCA is routinely used as an important asset management tool for evaluating agency and user costs over the life of a pavement. However, the accuracy of current LCCA approaches for pavements with geosynthetic separators remains uncertain because pavement performance prediction models are often based on limited laboratory testing or short-term field monitoring data. Variations in model assumptions, design inputs, maintenance activities, and user cost estimates can significantly affect LCCA results and may obscure the benefits of geosynthetics.

Since many pavements constructed during the early implementation of LCCA have now experienced major rehabilitation activities or reached a substantial portion of their service life, state departments of transportation (DOTs) have accumulated significant field performance, maintenance, and cost data. These data provide an opportunity to compare actual life-cycle costs with the original LCCA predictions and to improve future analyses.

The objective of this research is to (a) use real life-cycle cost data from flexible pavements with geosynthetics used as a separator between the base/subbase and subgrade to validate the LCCA performed at the project design phase, (b) quantify the differences between LCCA results and real life-cycle costs and identify the factors that contribute to any discrepancies, and (c) make recommendations for future LCCA models for other geosynthetic functions. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 11:16:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2712204</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Smart Drop-Shipping and Stocking Decision Support System</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2703794</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Drop-shipping is an increasingly important order fulfillment strategy in modern supply chains, allowing firms to reduce inventory holding costs by shipping products directly from suppliers to customers. However, because inventory is not directly controlled by the firm, drop-shipping can introduce uncertainty in product availability, delivery lead times, and service reliability. To compensate, firms often rely on expedited transportation, which increases costs and may negatively affect safety and efficiency in freight operations. These trade-offs create a challenging decision problem: determining which products should be stocked internally, fulfilled through drop-shipping, or managed under a mixed fulfillment strategy.
Industry interviews with a major U.S. wholesaler indicate that firms tend to rely on drop-shipping for slow-moving products due to limited warehouse space and capital constraints, yet lack systematic, data-driven methods to guide these decisions Existing research largely focuses on single-product settings or coordination issues between retailers and suppliers and does not address multi-product decisions under warehouse capacity constraints.
This project aims to fill this gap by developing an optimization-based decision support framework for drop-shipping and inventory planning across multiple stock-keeping units (SKUs). The proposed approach integrates mixed-integer programming with meta-heuristic methods to support large-scale, real-world applications. The model incorporates demand patterns, inventory holding costs, transportation costs, service level requirements, and cash flow constraints. A complementary simulation framework will be developed to evaluate system performance under uncertainty in demand, supplier inventory availability, and delivery times.
The project supports Mid-America Transportation Center (MATC) themes of Safety and Transportation Systems of the Future by enabling more predictable and efficient freight movements, reducing reliance on expedited shipping, and promoting data-driven planning in distributed fulfillment networks. Expected outcomes include an implementable decision support tool, analytical insights for industry stakeholders, and dissemination through publications and conference presentations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 11:49:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2703794</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Assessment of Litter Hot Spot Areas for Targeted Reduction in Prince George's County</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2701237</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The frequency and volume of litter and illegal dumping on state and county roadways in Prince George’s County are increasing, despite efforts like scheduled litter blitzes, which have shown limited long-term success. Over the past five years, the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) spent approximately $42 million removing litter and debris, with last year’s costs alone reaching $15 million—the equivalent of 45 new dump trucks or nearly 60 miles of resurfaced roads (Source WBAL News: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/drivers-watch-out-for-operation-clean-sweep-maryland/ar-BB1jY1rr). These expenditures are unsustainable, especially given recent fiscal shortfalls. This joint research proposal, submitted by District 3 and Prince George’s County Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T), aims to evaluate litter hot spots at the census tract level, as current efforts have not addressed the root causes of the issue. Prince George’s County, a well-resourced and educated area, presents unique challenges, suggesting the problem extends beyond awareness or resource deficits. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 09:15:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2701237</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Rural Vehicle Markets and Consumer Affordability</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2691725</link>
      <description><![CDATA[There is a need to better understand rural vehicle consumer choice and transportation affordability to inform efforts to support economic vitality in rural communities. Access to adequate vehicle choices at affordable price points may be limited in rural contexts due to the spatial location of vehicle purchase options. At the same time, access to affordable vehicle options has important implications for transportation affordability, mobility, and economic opportunity in rural areas. Prior research suggests that people living in rural areas are more vehicle dependent, and that vehicle affordability and access is related to mobility and economic opportunity. Recent research indicates that rural vehicle consumers face more limited options and higher prices for a small subset of vehicle options, however, little is known about the implications for consumer choice and vehicle affordability for the overall vehicle market. This project uses detailed vehicle data and vehicle dealership listings in Colorado, Maine, and Vermont to evaluate the relationship between vehicle options, distances people travel to purchase a vehicle, and the price paid for the vehicle in both urban and rural contexts. Findings from this research can inform policies that seek to expand access to affordable transportation options in rural communities.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2026 23:55:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2691725</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Personal Vehicle Ownership and Operating Cost Calculator (Version 2.0) for Quantifying On-road Vehicle Operating Costs</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2691663</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In 2018, the Georgia Tech National Center for Sustainable Transportation (NCST) research team developed the Vehicle Ownership and Operating Cost Calculator (VCC) Version 1.0, allowing users to calculate and understand total vehicle ownership costs over the lifespan of the vehicle. Traditional resources typically found on automotive websites offer five-year cost projections, but often overlook or simplify long-term expenses such as financing, maintenance, energy use, and depreciation, which vary widely based on region, vehicle type, and individual driving habits. By allowing users to input personalized data, the calculator provides a tailored, detailed analysis of ownership costs, helping users make more informed decisions about vehicle purchases. The VCC is designed to serve as an educational resource (highlighting the cost categories associated with vehicle ownership) and as an instructional aid in courses that examine transportation planning and economic assessments. The VCC allows users to input data specific to their circumstances, including vehicle purchase price, loan details, annual mileage, insurance, energy costs, maintenance, and other costs like parking and tolls. Using data from sources such as the Georgia Department of Revenue’s vehicle pricing database and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fuel Economy Database, the calculator provides customized cost estimates. The tool provides users (students and the public) with a thorough understanding of the full costs associated with lifetime vehicle ownership, by offering a comprehensive breakdown of ownership costs, including hidden expenses often overlooked in purchase decisions. The original model became dated, because the tool did not have the ability to automatically ingest and update vehicle ownership cost data. This project will update the tool with new data, develop data ingestion procedures, and modify output formats to support economic assessments of roadway design alternatives. To make the VCC accessible and support technology transfer, this project will update the calculator to accommodate the latest vehicle technologies (2018-2025) and to generate an online model presence. The research team will update fuel prices, maintenance, insurance costs, and depreciation rates to capture recent market changes. The team will also assess and implement enhanced reporting features to provide users with more detailed breakdowns and visualizations of ownership costs. Finally, the team will modify the structure of the model so that the tool can compile operating costs per vehicle-mile for observed and modeled on-road fleet compositions and operating conditions. The deliverables will include an updated version of the calculator accessible as both an Excel tool and a web interface.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2026 23:22:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2691663</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Cost-Effectiveness and Service Impacts of Bus Transit Priority Strategies


</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2636146</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Transit agencies across the United States are increasingly implementing transit priority strategies to improve service reliability, travel times, operating efficiency, and customer experience. Common transit priority measures include transit signal priority (TSP), bus-only lanes, queue jumps, stop consolidation, and bulb-outs.

As agencies invest in these strategies, there are increasing expectations to justify expenditures based on measurable outcomes, including travel time savings, reliability improvements, operating cost efficiencies, ridership growth, environmental benefits, safety outcomes, and return on investment. Minimal methods exist to evaluate the costs, benefits, and long-term effectiveness of transit priority treatments across varying service characteristics, roadway conditions, land use contexts, and institutional environments.

TCRP Synthesis 149: Transit Signal Priority: Current State of the Practice (2020) documents current agency practices, deployment approaches, technologies, implementation challenges, and lessons learned associated with TSP. TCRP Research Report 262: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 4th edition (2026) advances methods for evaluating bus speed, reliability, and capacity. Research is needed to give transit agencies guidance on evaluating, comparing, prioritizing, and implementing bus transit priority investments.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to develop a guide, with supporting evaluation frameworks and decision-making tools, to enable transit agencies to assess, compare, prioritize, and communicate the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of bus transit priority strategies.

]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2025 19:58:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2636146</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Cost Effective Roundabouts: Evaluate Options for Reducing Roundabout Footprints and Construction Costs</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2636041</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The operational and safety benefits of modern roundabouts are well established, providing less delay and significantly reducing fatalities and serious injuries. While their use in Texas and throughout the country continues to grow, opportunities for further implementation can be limited in some locations due to their relatively high construction costs, compared to alternatives such as traditional intersections controlled by stop signs or traffic signals. The footprint of roundabouts is larger than these traditional alternatives, increasing costs for right-of-way and pavement; while those upfront construction costs can be mitigated over the life of the intersection through reduced maintenance and operation costs, the construction costs are still a factor in the decision-making process for intersection control. This effect can be even more pronounced when attempting to build roundabouts with scarce safety, maintenance, or mobility funds, as the cost of one roundabout can account for the entire annual allotment of a district’s safety funds. To maximize opportunities for roundabout implementation, research is needed to identify more cost-effective ways to address footprint and construction costs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2025 14:19:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2636041</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>DOT Application of the Palmiter Stream Management Technique in Small Streams

</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2633332</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) has one large experimental installation of the Palmiter Method in Clark County along the Mad River.  ODOT is interested in expanding the use of this technique across the state. Rapid deployment/implementation of the method on smaller streams with erosion concerns near infrastructure is potentially a better application of the method.  It is unclear how the method can be deployed and what benefits and drawbacks are likely in a small stream.  There is potential that the Palmiter Method is much better suited for small stream erosion issues, using low-cost materials, and potentially beneficial to stream habitat (as measured using OEPA sampling methods).  

The Palmiter Method was initially vetted using a Researcher-On-Call (ROC) contract with Ohio University who looked at what was known about the technique and potential applications in the DOT. No actual installations were constructed and monitored for risks/benefits/cost comparisons with traditional methods. ODOT manages thousands of stream erosion issues across the state. The most predominant stream type and stream/road interaction in the system are smaller streams that erode around culverts, into embankments, and undermine road shoulders. Research is needed to investigate the use of the Palmiter Methods on small streams comparing the cost, time, success/failure, biological impact, permitting, stream hydrology, and structure longevity compared to more traditional methods used to maintain erosion on small streams.

The goal of this research is to compare the Palmiter Method to traditional methods for erosion control in small streams.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 13:37:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2633332</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Managing the Prior Rights and Prescriptive Rights of Utilities

</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558399</link>
      <description><![CDATA[State departments of transportation (DOTs) manage and remediate prior rights and prescriptive rights when construction necessitates property ownership transfer from utilities. NCHRP Research Report 1054: Acquiring Utility Property Interests and Reimbursing Utility Relocation Costs: A Guide provided practitioners approaches to acquire utility-owned property and reimburse utility owners for eligible relocation costs. The research scope did not address management of prior rights and prescriptive rights claims, however. State DOTs still confront issues with determinations of prior rights and prescriptive rights claims that can differ greatly from one parcel or jurisdiction to another.

A comprehensive framework to identify and manage all types of compensable and noncompensable property interests in connection with utility relocations would assist state DOTs with inconsistencies in current processes and procedures. Research is needed to review pertinent laws, regulations, and practices; document case examples that identify best practices; and identify implementation opportunities.   

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to develop a guide for managing prior rights and prescriptive rights for utility relocations. The guide will contain successful applications from the state level and will incorporate varying methods and statutory requirements.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 10:03:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558399</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Strategies for Controlling Cost and Schedule Growth on Alternative Delivery Projects






</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558415</link>
      <description><![CDATA[State departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation agencies across the United States increasingly use alternative project delivery methods (APDMs) to deliver transportation projects, rather than the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) approach. APDMs include design-build (DB), progressive design-build, construction manager/general contractor, and public-private partnerships. Several factors are driving this trend, including the need for project cost-certainty, expediting project delivery, identifying and mitigating risks earlier in the project lifecycle, and shifting risks to or sharing risks with the parties most capable of managing them. 

Previous studies have focused on comparing the cost and schedule performance of DBB and DB projects, rather than APDMs at-large, and these studies tended to rely on small sample sizes and opinion-based data. Research is needed to better understand how to control the cost and schedule of projects utilizing APDMs from project planning through design and construction. 

The objective of this research is to provide a guide for transportation agencies on strategies to identify and manage risks that have led to cost and schedule growth on projects delivered with APDMs. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 20:31:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558415</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Downstream Infrastructure Impacts of Design Vehicle Selection</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558437</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Selecting a single design vehicle can significantly influence roadway geometry, safety, and user experience. Many roadway designs default to the largest vehicle, under the assumption that this approach will inherently accommodate smaller vehicles and non-motorized users. Yet, larger design vehicles may encourage overbuilt infrastructure, leading to wide lanes, large turning radii, and lengthy pedestrian crossings—conditions that can raise vehicle speeds and reduce pedestrian safety. Conversely, opting for a vehicle that is too small can force larger vehicles to encroach upon adjacent lanes or curbs, increasing maintenance costs and crash risks.

This project investigates how design vehicle choices affect roadway outcomes through two main phases. First, it reviews historical, current, and international practices via archival research, engineering manuals, policy documents, and interviews with practitioners. Second, it uses scenario modeling to measure how different vehicle assumptions alter intersection geometry, pedestrian crossings, and operational performance, as well as to evaluate the resulting safety and cost implications. The research will generate evidence-based guidelines for selecting an appropriate design vehicle, thereby optimizing roadway dimensions while safeguarding multimodal users.

By clarifying the downstream impacts of over- or under-designing for specific vehicles, this study aims to improve safety and functionality, minimize unnecessary infrastructure expenses, and align with broader sustainability and equity goals.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 16:11:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558437</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RES2023-30: I-24 Smart Corridor</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2539923</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The I-24 SMART Corridor takes a comprehensive approach to improving the safety and travel time reliability along the corridor utilizing existing infrastructure and emerging technology. Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) technologies are a key initiative of 
Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) by aligning with several strategic goals of TDOT including safety, mobility, sustainability, and consistent customer experience. To achieve the benefits of successfully applied V2X
technologies along the I-24 SMART Corridor, a clearly defined direction of V2X deployments needs to be established. The path towards applying V2X technologies throughout the I-24 SMART Corridor is described within the I-24 SMART Corridor V2X Roadmap. The I-24 SMART Corridor Roadmap provides an evaluation of
the existing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) infrastructure along the corridor as well as an implementation plan for V2X applications that meet the goals of the I-24 SMART Corridor. The initial deployment locations for V2X applications were based on several safety factors including existing traffic volumes, crash history, and reoccurring
congestion. These safety factor hotspots led to the specific V2X application needs along the I-24 SMART Corridor. Along with the hotspots, geometric factors were included in determining which specific V2X applications were most applicable at each hotspot location. In addition to identifying and locating where specific V2X applications should be provided along the I-24 SMART Corridor, the Roadmap provides the costs associated
with implementing these applications. These costs include software, physical integration, vehicular integration, and annual operations and maintenance costs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:50:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2539923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>