<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=PHNlYXJjaD48cGFyYW1zPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJkYXRlaW4iIHZhbHVlPSJhbGwiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9InN1YmplY3Rsb2dpYyIgdmFsdWU9Im9yIiAvPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJ0ZXJtc2xvZ2ljIiB2YWx1ZT0ib3IiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9ImxvY2F0aW9uIiB2YWx1ZT0iMTYiIC8+PC9wYXJhbXM+PGZpbHRlcnM+PGZpbHRlciBmaWVsZD0iaW5kZXh0ZXJtcyIgdmFsdWU9IiZxdW90O0V2YWx1YXRpb24mcXVvdDsiIG9yaWdpbmFsX3ZhbHVlPSImcXVvdDtFdmFsdWF0aW9uJnF1b3Q7IiAvPjwvZmlsdGVycz48cmFuZ2VzIC8+PHNvcnRzPjxzb3J0IGZpZWxkPSJwdWJsaXNoZWQiIG9yZGVyPSJkZXNjIiAvPjwvc29ydHM+PHBlcnNpc3RzPjxwZXJzaXN0IG5hbWU9InJhbmdldHlwZSIgdmFsdWU9InB1Ymxpc2hlZGRhdGUiIC8+PC9wZXJzaXN0cz48L3NlYXJjaD4=" 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>Portable Tool for Periodic Evaluations of Intersection Signal Timings</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2725460</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The safety and efficiency of traffic-signal-controlled intersections rely on having appropriate timing signals for intersection users. Yellow, all-red, and crosswalk timings that are too low for users create the potential for intersection conflicts. Similarly, effective green times that are too small for volumes create long queues and congestion. However, signal timings are typically only evaluated every 2-5 years when signals are retimed through an often time-consuming process. The proposed solution is a portable device containing low-cost off-the-shelf radar and camera sensors that will record the trajectories of intersection users differentiating between pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 16:36:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2725460</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Post-World War II Institutional Buildings: Expediting Section 106 Review through a Better Understanding of Practices at a National Level</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2712187</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In the postwar era, many Americans moved from cities to newly developed suburbs. This extensive postwar construction is or is approaching fifty years old and must be considered for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Institutional buildings, the community-focused resources tied to the spread of residential development, are found in large numbers across the country. These include schools, hospitals, city halls, courthouses, fire and police stations, libraries, churches, veteran’s and fraternal organization buildings, National Guard armories, post offices, airports, and parks.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that federal agencies and recipients of federal funds consider the effects of construction projects on properties that are eligible for listing on the NRHP. The volume of postwar property evaluations can be overwhelming for state departments of transportation (DOTs), FHWA division offices, and state and tribal historical preservation officers. In addition, evaluations of these properties are highly diverse in physical form and materials, reflecting a wide range of historic trends and architectural contexts, and have not been extensively studied or documented. As a result, evaluations may use inconsistent approaches and require significant time and staff resources.

The objective of the research is to develop a constituent evaluation methodology to determine NRHP eligibility of postwar institutional buildings, which would be replicable throughout the United States at different levels of government. The research should provide a definition of common institutional property types and a tool for evaluating ubiquitous, vernacular versions of institutional resources that pose the greatest challenge to practitioners and consulting parties.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:14:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2712187</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Rewrite and Modernize the Manual for Bridge Evaluation for Compliance with the Revised National Bridge Inspection Standards</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2712177</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE) is the primary manual for load rating of bridges and also includes important information regarding inspection and asset management. Bridge owners rely on the manual to remain compliant with the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), but also to maintain safety of the traveling public without unnecessarily restricting commerce by overconservative load ratings. The MBE has been revised multiple times to attempt to keep up with research, but due to the size and complexity of the manual, these updates have been limited to individual sections of the manual, leading to inconsistencies. Addressing these inconsistencies will help bridge owners maintain the safety of their bridges without unnecessarily restricting commerce. The MBE needs to be comprehensively updated to incorporate changes in federal legislation and regulations, including (1) element-level bridge inspection on the National Highway System, (2) bridge management system as part of Transportation Asset Management Plan, (3) NBIS, and (4) the Specification for the National Bridge Inventory (SNBI).

Additionally, the MBE updates have not kept pace with innovations, research, and best practices, such as nondestructive evaluation techniques, underwater imaging, uncrewed inspection systems, bridge asset management systems, oversize/overweight permitting, posting, nonredundant steel tension members, and risk-based inspection intervals. Past updates lacked a holistic approach, which led to inconsistencies throughout the MBE. Some MBE topics may benefit from consolidating existing documents into the MBE, relocating existing MBE topics to other AASHTO documents, or creating independent manuals to streamline the user experience. NCHRP Project 20-123(21) is developing a plan to systematically update the AASHTO MBE. This project would implement the findings of that roadmap.

The objective of this research is to implement the Roadmap for the Rewrite of the Manual for Bridge Evaluation based on the recommendations from NCHRP Project 20-123(21). ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 14:57:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2712177</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Modernizing Rockfall Assessment</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2698372</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Using targeted remote sensing and other advanced survey techniques, combined with data-driven analysis, this pilot study will evaluate how well these approaches can identify meaningful changes in slope conditions and determine whether rockfall material reaches the roadway or is effectively contained (e.g., within ditches). The results will help 
Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) improve the consistency of slope evaluation and prioritization of mitigation efforts, supporting more efficient use of maintenance resources, improved safety, and reduced traffic disruptions. The study will also provide insight into how repeated observations can be used to track changes in slope condition and performance over time, supporting long-term planning and asset management.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 16:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2698372</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Rural Road Infrastructure Assessment and Enhancement for Autonomous Vehicle Deployment</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2526753</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This project aims to accelerate the deployment of automated vehicle (AV) technologies by assessing rural road infrastructure readiness. The project will utilize commercial AV with advanced driver assistance systems and lab AV with automated driving systems to collect data on physical infrastructure and digital infrastructure under varying conditions such as diverse road types, weather, and lighting. Sensors such as cameras, GPS, and 5G communication modules will be used for data collection in selected testing facilities and public roads in Georgia and North Carolina. The project will also develop a software tool that processes collected data using traditional algorithms and machine learning techniques. This tool will generate detailed summary reports and visualizations, enabling stakeholders to quantify infrastructure readiness, understand deficiencies, and prioritize areas for improvement. The goal is to identify specific infrastructure challenges limiting automated vehicle performance and propose guidelines and actionable strategies to enhance compatibility. This project will inform investment and policy decisions by delivering findings from targeted rural areas. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2025 12:20:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2526753</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Developing a Replicable, Group-Based Cybersecurity Assessment Methodology for Small and Rural Transit Operators</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2506303</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Despite years of education and advocacy, increased availability of free training and resources, increase funding availability, and new requirements for cybersecurity programs as a prerequisite for new federal discretionary grants or insurance, the gap in cyber resilience among small to mid-sized transit and their larger counterparts continues to grow.  Agencies continue to struggle not due to a lack of commitment but because of limited funding, insufficient expertise, and a clear regulatory mandate.

This project responds to this gap by developing a new approach to conducting National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) - based Cyber Resilience Reviews (CRR) for small and rural transit agencies. Unlike traditional individual assessments, this project will develop a group-based methodology that fosters shared learning and collective improvement to minimize shared vulnerabilities and risk among similar transit authorities.

U.S. DOT Priorities

The primary objective of this project is to strengthen the cyber resilience of small and rural transit agencies by developing a replicable innovative, collaborative approach to conducting NIST CRR– based cybersecurity assessments in group settings rather than individually, this project seeks to foster a culture of shared learning and best practices, benchmarking among peer agencies, and collective progress towards overall industry resiliency.  Doing so aligns with the U.S. DOT objectives of protecting critical infrastructure, advancing global competitiveness, and enhancing economic strength.  All sectors of critical infrastructure must be equally secure to ensure that “every community can connect to the people, places, and opportunities that make their lives meaningful.”]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 13:38:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2506303</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Investigation of Alternative Solvents for Asphalt Extraction and Recovery</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2437340</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In October 2023, the United States Environmental Protection Agency announced an impending ban on trichloroethylene (TCE). TCE is a widely used solvent that can dissolve many organic materials, including asphalt binder. The objectives of this research are as follows. Identify potential alternative solvents to TCE. Assess the benefits and drawbacks of each. Develop solvent extraction protocol using the most promising solvent. Evaluate extracted binder (using the selected solvent) for characterization. Quantify the variability between recovered binder and that of TCE extracted and original asphalt binders. Introduce an optimum approach to utilize the new technique if feasible.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 09:52:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2437340</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Development of an Evaluation and Acceptance Process for Traffic Count Devices </title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2433965</link>
      <description><![CDATA[As new traffic count device technologies emerge, it is crucial to establish guidelines for their evaluation and acceptance for use by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). These guidelines should consider factors such as count accuracy and reliability. Having guidelines will ensure that the most effective and efficient technologies are implemented for traffic monitoring and management. This project aims to develop an evaluation process for assessing the suitability of traffic count sensors for traffic monitoring purposes. The methodology will be tested and validated using a vision-based classification device as a pilot. The potential implementation of this research is that the Traffic Operations Division (TOD) can utilize the research results to establish an official traffic count device verification and acceptance procedure. This standardized procedure can be applied to all future traffic count devices seeking verification for use by VDOT.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2024 10:05:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2433965</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation of FHWA Highway Safety Information Systems (HSIS)











</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2419747</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Safety Information System (HSIS) is a roadway-based data system that provides quality data on several crash, roadway, and traffic variables. It is composed of data already being collected by states and one urban center (California, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Washington, and Charlotte, North Carolina) for managing the highway system and studying highway safety.  HSIS can be used to analyze many safety problems, including basic "problem identification" issues, identifying the size and extent of a safety problem, modeling efforts that attempt to predict future crashes from roadway characteristics and traffic factors, and evaluating the safety effectiveness of interventions. HSIS is used in support of the FHWA safety research program and provides input to program policy decisions. HSIS is available to professionals conducting research under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, universities, and others studying highway safety.

The FHWA Research & Technology (R&T) evaluation program was initiated in 2013 to assess and communicate the value and effectiveness of FHWA R&T investment. The objective of the R&T evaluation program is to document the impact of the projects, demonstrate accountability to funders and policymakers, and identify lessons learned and best practices that can be applied to future projects/programs, thus completing the innovation lifecycle.  The Transportation Research Board (TRB), in collaboration with the FHWA, is overseeing the TRB/FHWA Program Evaluation (TFPE) to evaluate such programs.

The objective of this research is to develop and execute an evaluation plan for the FHWA HSIS to answer these fundamental questions: (1) Efficiency: Are the HSIS activities conducted with an appropriate use of resources, such as budget and staff time (e.g., research and implementation approach, funding level)? (2) Implementation: Is the HSIS being applied and/or adopted by the users? If yes, how is it being applied or adopted? How is HSIS different from other safety databases, such as Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), General Estimates System (GES), and National Park Service Service-wide Traffic Accident Reporting System (STARS)? (3) Effectiveness: Is HSIS achieving the intended goals and objectives (e.g., impact)? What datasets will be used to measure effectiveness?
(4) Cost-effectiveness: Does the value or benefit of achieving the HSIS goals and objectives exceed the cost of producing them (e.g., return on investment and cost-benefit ratio)? (5) Attribution: Is the HSIS addressing the following FHWA Strategic Goals?
(a) Safety: Make the transportation system safer for all people. Advance a future without transportation-related serious injuries and fatalities. (b) Economic strength and global competitiveness: Grow a sustainable economy. Invest in the transportation system to provide reliable and efficient access to resources, markets, and good-paying jobs to American workers and businesses. (c) Transformation: Design for the future. Invest in purpose-driven research and innovation to meet the challenges of the present and modernize a transportation system of the future that serves everyone today and in the future. (d) Organizational excellence: Strengthen this world-class organization. Advance FHWA's mission by establishing policies, processes, and an innovative culture to serve communities effectively and steward the public’s resources responsibly.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:41:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2419747</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation of Concrete Specimens Prepared with Corrosion Resistant Reinforcement After Long Term, Greater than 15 Years, Outdoor and Laboratory Exposures</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2384731</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The purpose of the project is to assess the long-term (>15 years for lab samples) performance of CRRs. The samples that will be evaluated have been exposed to field conditions as well as indoor and outdoor laboratory conditions. Evaluate CRRs to identify which types of materials, exposure conditions, and geometries have shown corrosion initiation. In addition, quantify the extent of the corrosion identified. Obtain chloride profiles from in-service bridges constructed with CRR. The evaluation will include analysis of all available data that has been collected over the lifetime of the samples as well as collecting new data as appropriate.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2024 14:22:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2384731</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Pavement Marking Selection for Bridge and Pavement Preservation Treatments</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381745</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Pavement markings play a major role in delineating roadways and providing essential guidance to road users. Effective and durable pavement markings enhance visibility and safety under various conditions, including daytime, nighttime, and wet conditions. 

However, not all pavement markings are compatible with different bridge and pavement preservation treatments, which can lead to shorter service lives. Research is needed to assess the compatibility, and the short- and long-term performance of various pavement markings used on different bridge and pavement preservation treatments.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to develop guidelines for selection of recommended pavement marking types for bridge and pavement preservation treatments.

]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2024 14:30:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381745</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Method for Using ISPEs in Crash-Testing Protocols</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381712</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In-service performance evaluations (ISPEs) of roadside safety features have been recommended for over 40 years. Michie recommended ISPEs for crash-test and evaluation procedures in NCHRP Report 230: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Appurtenances, published in 1981. The importance of and need for ISPEs was reiterated by Ross et al. in NCHRP Report 350: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features and by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). The ISPE criteria were finalized in NCHRP Research Report 1010: In-Service Performance Evaluation: Guidelines for the Assembly and Analysis of Data. These reports outline the potential use of ISPEs into establish crashworthiness without crash tests.
Although it has been established that ISPE studies could help state departments of transportation (DOTs) to establish crashworthiness without having to conduct many crash tests, additional investigation on how ISPE data can be used to determine roadside safety hardware crashworthiness in lieu of crash tests would be helpful. Research is needed to incorporate ISPE data into crash-testing and evaluation protocols for roadside safety hardware to support state DOTs in delivering a safer highway network for all users. 
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this research project is to investigate how state DOTs can incorporate collected ISPE data and results in commonly used crash-testing protocols for roadside safety hardware.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2024 15:29:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381712</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Developing a Data Repository to Help with TSMO Strategies Evaluations



</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381698</link>
      <description><![CDATA[As agencies seek to improve transportation safety and mobility, effectively operating transportation facilities and networks is critically important. There are dozens of Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) strategies that a facility or network could use. Knowing which TSMO strategies are more likely to be effective at addressing safety and operations issues enables agencies and practitioners to make data-driven decisions to effectively use limited funding. 

The evaluation of TSMO strategies is often complicated by unique characteristics of TSMO strategies, such as deployment of two or more strategies at once, intermittent or flexible use based on prevailing conditions, and widespread effects across a network. Access to better evaluation methods will support agencies in assessing their own use of TSMO strategies. A lack of a central repository that enables sharing of strategy effectiveness data and information impedes the efficiency of agencies and their decision-making for more effective and efficient investments in TSMO strategies. 

Research is needed to help state departments of transportation (DOTs) develop tools to evaluate TSMO strategies, compile results, and make them available to practitioners.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this project are (1) to develop evaluation methods to assess the effectiveness of TSMO strategies and (2) to create a web-based central repository to share information, data, and evaluation methods and results for DOTs and other agencies.  ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2024 21:18:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381698</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Managing the Life Cycle of Software for Evolving Traffic Management Systems




</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381709</link>
      <description><![CDATA[As agencies progress toward the next generation of traffic management systems (TMSs), new software that adds functions has to be implemented within TMSs. A TMS software could be modular or stand-alone, but has to be integrated within a software subsystem of TMSs. These software subsystems could use proprietary, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS), open-source, or customized software or a combination produced by agency staff and external developers. Agencies will benefit from an understanding of options and best practices for designing, procuring, and managing software subsystems to address current and evolving needs of traffic management and TMS.

For this project, a software subsystem includes software programs that support the functions and services of the TMS and may share software products with the entire TMS and specific software programs installed for other subsystems or decision support tools. Assorted software programs and application programming interfaces (APIs) may be integrated into this overall software subsystem to carry out management and operating requirements. 

Limited resources exist to support identifying requirements and evaluating design options and different technologies (e.g., cloud, server, hybrid cloud, and server) or solutions (e.g., distributed, centrally managed) when contemplating or pursuing the integration or incorporation of new or evolving TMS software subsystems, programs, or applications and managing them. Research is needed to provide insights into and understanding of options and best practices for developing and managing requirements as well as planning, designing, procuring, evaluating, and maintaining TMS software subsystems, programs, and APIs.

The objective of this project is to develop a technical guide to manage the entire life cycle of software subsystems within a TMS for state departments of transportation (DOTs) and other agencies.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2024 19:54:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381709</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluations of FHWA Research &amp; Technology Program Projects. Evaluation of the Transportation Pooled Fund Program</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2344662</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Transportation Pooled Fund (TPF) Program is a collaborative program involving state departments of transportation (DOTs), AASHTO, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that has existed for more than 45 years. The program was first defined in 1977 per Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 560.3 as a FHWA administered program in coordination with state DOTs. The TPF program creates an opportunity for partners to pool their funds, subject matter expertise, and other resources to conduct high-priority research to meet a wide variety of shared transportation problems. Being able to pool funds allows participants to achieve more from a study than if they conducted a study on their own. By leveraging funds and expertise, participants develop innovative solutions with a smaller investment while extending the reach and impact of their research. Projects that previously could have been cost prohibitive become more achievable through participation in the TPF Program. By offering hundreds of active pooled fund studies, the TPF Program assists partners in finding and funding projects applicable to their agency’s needs.

The FHWA Research & Technology (R&T) evaluation program was initiated in 2013 to assess and communicate the value and effectiveness of FHWA R&T investment. The objective of the R&T evaluation program is to document the impact of the projects, demonstrate accountability to funders and policymakers, and identify lessons learned and best practices that can be applied to future projects/programs, thus completing the innovation lifecycle. The Transportation Research Board (TRB), in collaboration with the FHWA, is overseeing the TRB/FHWA Program Evaluation (TFPE) to evaluate such programs. There is a need to evaluate the TPF to establish the degree of efficiency, implementation, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and attribution to assess and communicate its value.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to develop and execute an evaluation plan for the FHWA’s Transportation Pooled Fund Program to answer these fundamental questions: (1) Efficiency: Are the TPF Program’s activities conducted with an appropriate use of resources, such as budget and staff time (e.g., research and implementation approach, funding level)? How well is the administration of the program functioning? What is the appropriate level of involvement from the FHWA division office, particularly as it relates to time? Are there best practices from FHWA division offices that can be shared with other division offices? (2) Implementation: Are the results of TPF Program research being applied? Are project areas being adopted by the users (e.g., change in culture, state of the practice)? Is the FHWA TPF providing the tools, support, and outputs that DOTs need to implement? How does the FHWA TPF consider implementation for projects? How does the collaboration between FHWA and state transportation agencies help the state agencies implement the program? How does participation on a TPF affect future implementation of a project’s results? (3) Effectiveness: Is the TPF Program achieving the goals and objectives it was intended to accomplish (e.g., impact)? How satisfied are states with the TPF Program and results? (4) Cost-effectiveness: Does the value or benefit of achieving the TPF Program’s goals and objectives exceed the cost of producing them (e.g., return on investment and cost-benefit ratio)? Should there be a sliding scale for all projects based on the amount of projects states are allocated? How much staff time is needed for administration, especially for larger projects? (5) Attribution: How is the TPF Program helping states address their strategic goals (e.g., outcome)?

Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks.
TASKS: (Task 1) Prepare an Evaluation Scoping Report presenting the TPF Program Evaluation team’s understanding of the objective, likely measures of effectiveness, analysis activities, and budget for evaluation. (Task 2) Prepare an Evaluation Plan, describing the evaluation strategy and specific tasks to be performed, planned calendar schedule, intermediate evaluation products, and the role and activities that each member of the evaluation team will have in the evaluation plan. Include a logic model of the TPF Program. Discuss the sample size of TPF projects and case studies to be included. (Task 3) Execute the Evaluation Plan and prepare an Interim Report on the TPF Program Evaluation, prepared approximately midway through the Evaluation Plan, describing the evaluation team’s progress on the Evaluation Plan, difficulties encountered in conducting the work, and any preliminary assessment supported by work so far accomplished. (Task 4) Prepare a TPF Program Evaluation Report documenting the evaluation and presenting the results. Solicit comments on the draft from TRB and FHWA, prepare a memorandum responding to comments, and revise the draft as appropriate to prepare the final Project Evaluation Report. Recommendations shall be prepared and compiled separately for presentation to the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC) and shall not be part of the final Project Evaluation Report. (Task 5) Prepare briefing materials as appropriate and participate in an in-person meeting of the RTCC to present the final TPF Program Evaluation Report and recommendations. Discuss the evaluation and its findings. Prior to the RTCC meeting, present the materials to and participate in a virtual meeting with FHWA. The RTCC will review the final report and issue any recommendations to the FHWA the RTCC deems appropriate in the form of a letter report.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:48:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2344662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>