<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>Achieving Efficient Cultural Resources Management in Project Delivery</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2289611</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Transportation projects in which the study area contains cultural resources in need of identification and analysis often struggle to meet project delivery schedules, particularly with respect to federally funded projects that fall under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The now-rescinded Executive Order (EO) 13807 of 2017 first established goals of 2-year completion of environmental impact statements and 1-year completion of environmental assessments under NEPA. While EO 13807 and One Federal Decision (OFD) requirements have been rescinded, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Council of Environmental Quality regulations codified these required timelines. Additionally, state laws and other factors may also put pressure on agencies to conduct more efficient cultural resources identification and analyses in project delivery.

State departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation agencies employ various approaches to meet the project delivery timelines established in NEPA, including Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) studies; early project scoping; simplified review and application of historical context for common resource types; and programmatic agreements. NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) regulations are not triggered until there is a programmed, funded project for which environmental compliance studies are conducted. However, cultural resource analysis is critical for safeguarding cultural resources protected in federal, state, and tribal law. Research is needed to identify and analyze methods and strategies to achieve efficiencies and avoid delays in project delivery when cultural resources are affected.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to prepare tools with guidelines for completing effective cultural resource analyses in a time-constrained project delivery context. At a minimum the research should: Provide the regulatory and practical benefits of implementing efficient and timely cultural resources analyses in project delivery; Identify and address specific agency challenges to completing efficient cultural resources analyses, particularly in time-constrained project delivery processes such as those mandated by NEPA; and Advise agencies on the selection and implementation of proven methods and tools for conducting timely and effective cultural resources analyses of a range of specific resources.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:58:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2289611</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Improving the Efficiency and Consistency of Section 106 Compliance for State DOTs: Strategies for Project-Level Programmatic Agreements and Postwar Commercial Properties</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1628643</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), when a transportation project involves federal funding, licensing, or permitting, transportation agencies must identify and evaluate properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 also requires that transportation agencies determine if a project will have adverse effects on historic properties and how those effects can be resolved. Experience has shown that successful and timely completion of Section 106 consultation can be a challenge when, for instance, it is initiated too late in the project development process, or when it involves complex projects, large numbers of consulting parties, or ubiquitous or understudied property types. 
 
State departments of transportation (DOTs) continue to seek ways to better fulfill their Section 106 responsibilities while also supporting expedited project delivery schedules and managing agency resources effectively. Two valuable strategies are (1) the use of project-level programmatic agreements (PAs) and (2) a robust approach to context development, identification, and evaluation of a challenging property type.  
 
By stipulating commitments in a project-level PA, Section 106 can be administratively completed earlier in project development. Such agreements structure the Section 106 consultation process to align with expedited project delivery schedules, which are often a feature of design build (DB) or public-private partnership (P3) contracting arrangements; some state DOTs are also considering project-level PAs in connection with EO 13807 (One Federal Decision).  
 
The second strategy - a robust methodology for assessing challenging properties - is especially needed for commercial properties in urban, suburban, and rural areas constructed from 1945 to 1980. Because of the large number of properties dating from this postwar era, state DOTs and other agencies must dedicate considerable staff and other resources to meet these evaluation requirements. The diverse forms of these property types reflect the various trends of the period. For example, from 1945 to 1960, rapid, automobile-oriented suburbanization prompted the construction of drive-up and drive-thru restaurants. The energy crisis of the 1970s influenced commercial design forms and materials choices. Other forces may be relevant in some regions of the country, such as corporate consolidation and changes in environmental regulation (e.g., regulation of underground storage tanks that triggered closings and abandonments of gas stations) in the 1980s or 1990s. Many commercial properties built from 1945 to 1980 were completed by major architectural firms or by companies that produced innovative new materials and construction methods, thus reflecting the nation's architectural, social, and cultural heritage. Even more properties were constructed using locally derived designs and materials (e.g., small, single story, cinder block grocery stores). These vernacular properties can also be significant, if, for example, they represent a common architectural form or contribute to a historic district. Apart from potential historic eligibility, postwar commercial properties are valued resources in many communities. 
 
NCHRP Report 723: A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing provides a national historic context and National Register eligibility guidelines for postwar houses and residential subdivisions. However, little guidance is available for postwar commercial properties such as gas stations, shopping centers, drug stores, office buildings, restaurants, and other non-residential properties. As a result, evaluations of these property types require significant time and staff resources. Inconsistent approaches also provide regulatory partners with inconsistent information, which means more time may be needed to complete consultation, resulting in project delays. Further, the volume of postwar property evaluations can be overwhelming for state DOTs, FHWA division offices, state historic preservation officers (SHPOs), and tribal historic preservation officers (THPOs). 
 
Research is needed to provide state DOTs, their regulatory partners, and other stakeholders with guidance on how to adopt and implement these two strategies. 
 
The objective of this research is to equip state DOTs, SHPOs, THPOs, and other partners to improve their efforts in meeting their Section 106 responsibilities in two major areas of practice by providing: 
 
(1)   A review of current use of and best practices and lessons learned in the development and implementation of project-level PAs; and
(2)   A structured, replicable methodology for context development, identification, and evaluation of common commercial property types built between 1945 and 1980. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2019 16:03:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1628643</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NextGenEA/EIS Database Tracking 
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1368629</link>
      <description><![CDATA[No summary provided.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:07:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1368629</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Program Development Study for SR-11/Otay Mesa East Port of Entry</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1232035</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) are serving as lead agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the preparation of a joint project-level or Tier II Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for SR-11 and the Otay Mesa East Port of Entry (POE). The Tier II EIR/EIS will address project-specific impacts and propose specific avoidance, minimization and/or compensation measures. The scope of the project is focused on the preparation of the EIR/EIS necessary to satisfy requirements of NEPA and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 14:30:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1232035</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>