<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+PGZpbHRlciBmaWVsZD0iaW5kZXh0ZXJtcyIgdmFsdWU9IiZxdW90O1Blcm1pdHMmcXVvdDsiIG9yaWdpbmFsX3ZhbHVlPSImcXVvdDtQZXJtaXRzJnF1b3Q7IiAvPjwvZmlsdGVycz48cmFuZ2VzIC8+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>Changing Motor Carrier Safety and Credentialing Violations to Civil Penalties</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2768419</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers are often cited for tax, credentialing, and permitting violations even though they are generally the responsibility of the motor carrier. If convicted, drivers may have misdemeanor violations added to their criminal record. This dynamic creates confusion among CMV drivers and potentially results in hardship. It also makes it difficult to adjudicate violations fairly. A potential solution lies in reclassifying these violations as civil penalties. Before this could be done, however, the Kentucky Transportatin Cabinet (KYTC) needs to understand how other states approach the adjudication of CMV violations, determine the fiscal implications of fines and court fees, and a develop a proposed policy or legislative framework for enacting changes.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 17:04:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2768419</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Impact Study on Increasing Truck Permit Weight Limits: Infrastructure &amp; Economic Considerations</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2724819</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Oregon’s current weight restrictions (105,500 lbs.) for divisible loads are less than neighboring states like Idaho and Nevada, which permit up to 129,900 lbs. In response to industry requests for alignment with these states, Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) needs a comprehensive impact assessment of what raising the weight limits will mean in terms of sustaining the current operational infrastructure its charged with maintaining. This study will evaluate infrastructure effects, highway safety, and maintenance costs, along with the implications for adaptation and community impacts. With neighboring states already designating heavier freight routes, increasing Oregon’s truck permit weight limits may support freight fleet electrification and promote regional integration of the shipping network while assessing the costs to maintain and manage this increased infrastructural burden that’s on ODOT’s horizon. This feasibility and impact study will assess selective extended weight designations in Oregon and survey existing programs nationwide while evaluating potential risks to structural integrity (pavement and bridges), traffic safety impacts, as well as community and environmental considerations. The findings will provide ODOT with data-driven insights to guide policy decisions. This study will also examine vehicle configurations and length factors necessary to maintain legal axle weights in Weight Tables 1 and 2 at a gross weight of 129,900 and determine if those lengths are consistent with the lengths allowed by the LCV (Longer Combination Vehicle) freeze in federal law.

(1) A comprehensive report containing recommendations to support an informed evaluation of increasing weight limits for divisible loads, including an infrastructure impact assessment detailing the effects of heavier loads on bridges, pavements, and highway safety, with a focus on high-frequency freight routes in Oregon. (2) An economic impact assessment will quantify the contributions of oversized freight to Oregon’s economy, balancing potential economic gains from increased freight capacity with the costs of infrastructure maintenance and safety considerations. (3) A strategic implementation plan will outline a phased approach to applying these findings, allowing ODOT to prioritize investments to engage communities and the public effectively.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:35:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2724819</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SPR 781 Optimizing SCDOT’s Permitting, Mitigation, and Compliance Systems to Improve Project Delivery</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2719301</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The overarching goal of Phase III is to optimize South Carolina Department of Transportation's (SCDOT’s) permitting, mitigation, and compliance
systems by leveraging emerging technologies. The objectives are to (1) maintain the existing
applications and enhance them through feedback from SCDOT users and consultants, (2) migrate
the geographic information system (GIS) applications to Experience Builder for improved functionality, (3) update the e-permitting
app to align with upcoming regulatory changes, (4) develop standardized templates for permit
drawings, and (5) explore emerging technologies to check the permit drawings and provide
feedback on errors and required changes, predict wetland impacts for future projects, and autogenerate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applications classified as Categorial Exclusions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:53:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2719301</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Leading Permitting Practices that Harmonize Enforcement of Divisible Load Permits across Jurisdictions</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2681239</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A February 2023 workshop with industry and state representatives identified challenges related to inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of divisible load requirements. Although 23 CFR 658.5 provides a definition of “divisible load,” both industry and state agencies report variation in how the definition is applied across states and, in some cases, within the same state.

Some states provide written guidance for operators and enforcement personnel, while others offer limited or no formal documentation. These differences can create operational challenges, including route adjustments, additional travel time, increased fuel use, parking constraints, and scheduling complications. Operators may also receive citations in one jurisdiction for loads that are permitted in another.

OBJECTIVE: This scan will examine how divisible load requirements are interpreted and enforced across states, counties, metropolitan areas, municipalities, and other transportation agencies. It will document differences in practice, explore factors contributing to those differences, and incorporate input from industry partners regarding cross-jurisdictional challenges and potential solutions.

The scan team will: Identify and document current interpretation and enforcement practices; Evaluate variations in definitions and applications of divisible load requirements; Highlight successful initiatives that promote clarity and consistency; Assess strategies that support improved compliance across jurisdictions; Develop recommendations for consistent documentation of divisible load requirements; Propose a clear, standardized definition for consideration by AASHTO and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

OBJECTIVE: The goal is to improve clarity, consistency, and coordination across jurisdictions while supporting effective enforcement and industry compliance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 14:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2681239</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Benefits and Barriers of Utility Infrastructure in Transportation Rights-of-Way


</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558403</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The use of transportation rights-of-way (ROW) for the co-location of utility infrastructure has become increasingly common as the demand grows for expanded energy, telecommunications, water, broadband, and other essential services. As both urban and rural regions experience rising infrastructure demands, transportation corridors offer a practical location for utility installations due to existing land use and established access. Because the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has long recognized the public interest in accommodating utilities within highway ROW, no uniform national framework guiding how these installations are planned, permitted, and managed across jurisdictions remains. Additionally, regulatory requirements and processes vary widely at the state and local levels, often creating inefficiencies and coordination challenges between transportation agencies and utility providers.

From a technical operations perspective, co-location introduces considerations related to the structural integrity of roadway assets, access for maintenance, and preservation of safety during construction and ongoing operations. Conversely, transportation maintenance activities can pose risks to utility systems, particularly where coordination is limited or asset data are incomplete. While co-location may reduce the need for new corridor development, associated costs can have economic and environmental implications, which require compliance with federal and state regulations. Research is needed to address evolving business practices for utility infrastructure in transportation ROW with regard to regulatory requirements, ensuring public safety, promoting sustainable infrastructure development, and clarifying the associated costs and benefits.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research project is to develop a compendium to identify and evaluate the benefits and barriers associated with utility infrastructure in transportation ROW. The compendium shall include, at minimum, an implementation guide and application tools for ROW management.

]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 09:48:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558403</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Development of a Tool to Streamline and Expedite the General Permit Application</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2507241</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT) plays a vital role in developing and maintaining infrastructure projects that often intersect with environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and rivers. These projects are governed by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which requires permits for discharging dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Compliance with this regulation is essential to ensure responsible stewardship of aquatic ecosystems and adherence to federal environmental standards.
Currently, the permit application process is highly labor-intensive, requiring extensive manual data entry that is both error-prone and time-consuming. Applications often demand significant input and corrections from NDOT, resulting in bottlenecks that delay approvals. The repeated back-and-forth communication between NDOT and consultants, along with the substantial effort NDOT must dedicate to guiding consultants—even after training—creates inefficiencies that strain resources for both NDOT and its consultants. These inefficiencies ripple outward, delaying infrastructure projects, inflating costs, and increasing administrative burdens on both NDOT and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which oversees the review of these applications. Modernizing the permit application process is not just an operational necessity but a strategic opportunity. Developing an electronic permitting (e-permitting) tool can transform the application workflow, ensuring timely, consistent, and compliant submissions. This initiative aligns closely with NDOT’s ongoing Nebraska Environmental Data System (NEDS) project, which provides a centralized platform for managing and analyzing environmental data. Integrating the e-permitting tool with NEDS offers the potential to enhance data sharing, streamline workflows, and create a cohesive system for tracking environmental resource reviews and compliance]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2025 11:17:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2507241</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Truck Permits: Managing Increasing Loads and Mitigating Infrastructure Damage to Balance Freight Mobility</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2472700</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Non-reducible truck permits, essential for freight mobility, pose significant challenges to infrastructure integrity, contributing to accelerated fatigue, increased maintenance costs, and safety hazards. This study quantifies the scope and distribution of permit loads across Massachusetts, evaluates their impact on bridges and highways, and verifies their alignment with current regulations and industry standards. The research will integrate data on truck permits, freight volumes, and infrastructure conditions to develop data-informed recommendations for mitigating adverse effects. Outcomes include optimized permit management strategies, improved infrastructure durability, and expanded access to reliable transportation, aligning with US DOT priorities in safety and system performance.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2024 10:27:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2472700</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Best Practices for Oversized/Overweight Vehicles</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2420004</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Local transportation agencies are experiencing a surge in permit requests for Oversize/Overweight (OSOW) vehicles weighing up to 104,000 pounds due to changes in urban waste collection practices, mining activities, industrial operations, and more. Pavements are not designed to withstand this recurring weight, which can lead to reduced pavement lifespan, damage, and road failures. The objective of this study is to develop an easy-to-use mechanistic-empirical tool for evaluating the cost/benefit analysis of permitting OSOW vehicles, identifying the cost to the agency (and ultimately the taxpayer) versus the benefit to a hauler. The tool will address the economic impacts of the permit (to the agency and the taxpayer) and can be used to determine and illustrate what axle spacing requirements currently meet pavement design standards for 10-ton loads. Knowing this spacing would help local agencies review permit requests. The study will also develop information to aid communication with elected officials and road users.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:37:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2420004</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices. Topic 56-14. State DOT Training Programs Used to Comply with NPDES Stormwater Permit Requirements</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2384702</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this synthesis was to document current state DOT practices for development and delivering training programs required by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permits.
 
 ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2024 20:38:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2384702</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices. Topic 56-13. DOT Budgetary Practices for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Programs



</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2384692</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requires state DOTs to develop and implement stormwater management programs to meet Section 402 - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements of the Clean Water Act. The MS4 permit places requirements on the management of stormwater quality and allows state DOTs to discharge stormwater runoff from their storm sewer systems to Waters of the US or state regulated waters. State DOTs must maintain adequate funding and resources to meet the requirements of the permit.

The state DOT MS4 stormwater programs are subject to risks, such as: budget shortfalls;
project overruns; increasing permit requirements; allocation of funds to address emergencies or non-compliance situations; and staff turnover with the associated loss of institutional knowledge.

To address these risks and uncertainties, state DOTs currently implement a wide variety of budget development and program cost determination practices and procedures.
The objective of this synthesis is to document current state DOT MS4 budget development, prioritization, and allocation practices.
Information to be gathered includes (but is not limited to): (1) MS4 stormwater program budget funding source(s); (2) Existence of written guidelines or procedures for developing MS4 stormwater program budgets (e.g., responsible staff, frequency of updates); (3) 
Methods to forecast MS4 stormwater program administrative, management, research, and implementation needs, subsequent budget; (4) Does your budget include contingencies for risks, such as: aging infrastructure, natural disasters, human impacts, policy changes; (5) Innovative approaches for funding, collaborative approaches to get funding – maintenance of facilities by non-DOT entities; (6) Process for developing the MS4 stormwater program budget; including allocation and prioritization; (7) Budget allocation for tools to support MS4 compliance, e.g. GIS, software, asset inventory, consultant services, databases; (8) Management practices for MS4 stormwater program budgets (e.g., frequency, performance metrics, and revisions); (9) Process/practices for updating budget allocation due to regulatory changes; and (10) Programs funded by the MS4 stormwater program budget.
Information will be gathered through a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, and follow- up interviews with selected DOTs for the development of case examples. Information gaps and suggestions for research to address those gaps will be identified.

Information Sources (Partial): (1) National Municipal Stormwater Alliance (NMSA) – Web page link - https://ms4resource.nationalstormwateralliance.org/index.php/determining-program-costs/#Topic%203 (2) AASHTO. (2010). Cost and Benefit of Transportation-Specific MS4 and Construction Permitting. (3) Taylor, S., et al. (2014). NCHRP Report 792: Long-Term Performance and Life-Cycle Costs of Stormwater Best Management Practices. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22275. (4) Whitman, J.B., and Perez, M.A. (2024). NCHRP Synthesis Report 614: Outsourcing Post-Construction Stormwater Best Management Practice Inspection and Maintenance Activities. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27502. (5) Dong, R., Nelson, J., Cummins, S., and Goodall, J. (2023). “Tracking the Cost of Maintaining Stormwater Best-Management Practice Facilities: The Role of Database Design and Data Entry Best Practices.” Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment.

TRB Staff (Consultant): Sandra Q. Larson, Email: slarson@nas.edu, Phone: 515-971-6329.

Meeting Dates: First Panel Meeting: February 26, 2025; Teleconference with Consultant: June 11, 2025, 2-3 pm eastern; Second Panel Meeting: December 4, 2025, Washington D.C.

Topic Panel: Maria Briones, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Eileen E Dunn, Arizona Department of Transportation, Jennifer Marie Green, Florida Department of Transportation, Becky Humphreys, Ohio Department of Transportation, Stephen M. Sisson, Delaware Department of Transportation, Nicklas "Nick" Tiedeken, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Gregory Granato, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
 ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2024 16:10:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2384692</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Load Rating and Posting of Long-Span Bridges</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2296638</link>
      <description><![CDATA[According to the National Bridge Inventory, approximately 6200 bridges in the United States have span lengths greater than 200 feet. Although the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) specifications for load and resistance factor rating (LRFR) and load factor rating (LFR) provide sufficient direction for evaluating bridges with span lengths ≤ 200 feet, they are not fully developed for evaluating structures with span lengths > 200 feet. Long-span bridges get special engineering analysis in the design phase, but methods for evaluating them in service are limited. To ensure public safety while sustaining commerce and preserving vital infrastructure, methods for rational load rating, permitting, and posting are essential. Research is needed to help state departments of transportation evaluate their long-span bridges.

The objective of this research is to develop procedures for load rating, posting, and permitting of highway bridges with spans greater than 200 feet in length. It shall consider all applicable load effects.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2023 19:28:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2296638</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>From Vetocracy to Capacity: Rebalancing State Power and Stakeholder Interests in American Infrastructure Development</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2250685</link>
      <description><![CDATA[To aid mass transit development, this project will identify bottlenecks and redundancies in the infrastructure permitting and approval process. Crucial to this segment of the project is identifying policies where well-meaning regulations are being used to undermine their own purported goals. In the context of this project, relevant examples include when community input requirements are exploited by NIMBY organizations or when proponents of highway expansion use environmental protection laws to pose legal challenges to passenger rail construction. The study will then propose a set of policy recommendations designed to simplify and shorten the permitting and approval process. This will be supported by an exploration of the overlapping jurisdictions of state, federal, and local regulatory regimes and administrative agencies concerning transportation infrastructure development. This section will likely include a discussion of environmental and environmental tradeoffs, wherein the paper will make the case that regulatory exemptions and carve-outs will be necessary to adequately address the scale of a variety of societal challenges. In practice, this means accepting local costs to achieve regional, national, and international prerogatives.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2023 13:06:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2250685</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices. Topic 55-07. Stormwater Retrofit Programs and Practices Through Third-Party Partnerships</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2190445</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Many existing highways were originally constructed without stormwater control facilities, prompting several state departments of transportation (DOTs) to retrofit these highway facilities with improved treatment and flow control systems. To implement watershed-based strategies more cost effectively, some DOTs have explored partnerships with third-party entities.The objective of this Synthesis project was to document practices used by state DOTs regarding stormwater retrofit partnerships with third parties. 

 ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2023 16:13:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2190445</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting reform studies</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2062459</link>
      <description><![CDATA[SELDM stormwater modeling studies with United States Geological Survey (USGS) and State departments of transportation (DOTs).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2022 16:17:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2062459</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>National Liaison Program</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2062458</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This research involves working with multiple Federal permitting agencies on permitting reform activities and programmatic approaches.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2022 16:17:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2062458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>