<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>Applicability of the 85th Percentile for Setting Speed Limits on Freeways, Expressways, and Rural Highways



</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381738</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The applicability of the 85th percentile speed for determining posted speed limits is a complex and controversial issue of concern to state departments of transportation (DOTs). The 85th percentile is the speed at or below which 85 percent of free-flowing traffic travels. It is sometimes used to provide an indication of the free-flow operating speed on the roadway for determining traffic control device applications. It has been used for decades as the basis for setting speed limits. 

In recent years, calls have been made to eliminate the 85th percentile speed as the basis for setting speed limits, especially in urban areas. Proponents of the 85th percentile speed argue that (1) it is a good measure of the speed at which drivers feel safe and comfortable on a given road; (2) it is a relevant data point that can indicate whether other modifications or speed management strategies might be needed to achieve compliance or some level of a self-enforcing road design; (3) and setting speed limits at or near the 85th percentile speed can reduce speed variance and improve safety. Conversely, critics argue that (1) the 85th percentile speed is not a reliable measure of safe driving; (2) it can be influenced by many factors, such as traffic volume, road conditions, and drivers’ perception of law enforcement activity; and (3) setting speed limits at or near the 85th percentile speed can encourage drivers to travel at higher speeds. Therefore, critics argue that the 85th percentile speed should be removed as a factor and that the Safe System approach should be required instead. 

Recent research and reasoning for moving away from the 85th percentile speed on urban arterials and residential streets do not address speed limits on freeways, expressways, and rural highways. Therefore, research is needed to examine the applicability of the 85th percentile speed for setting speed limits on freeways, expressways, or rural highways. 

The objectives of this project are to (1) examine the applicability of the 85th percentile speed as a factor in setting speed limits on freeways, expressways, and rural highways and (2) prepare a guide for state DOTs and other agencies with the authority to set speed limits on freeways, expressways, and rural highways that includes, at a minimum, implementation considerations, an application framework, and outreach materials for communication with policymakers. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2024 11:45:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381738</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Developing a Knowledge-Based System for Guiding Design, Operations, and Evaluation of Highway Work Zones.</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2118358</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study presents the development of a comprehensive knowledge-based work zone system/ tool that can provide the essential information and design guide to responsible traffic engineers.  This will enhance their knowledge and provide design guidance.  It will also help in effectively conducting alternative analysis in comparing different work zone designs.  ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2023 13:17:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2118358</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Interstate 4 (I-4) Florida's Regional Advanced Mobility Elements
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1840374</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The project consists of two parts conducted in parallel. The objective of Part A is to provide stakeholder coordination support for evaluating the "before" conditions for the I-4 Florida's Regional Advanced Mobility Elements (FRAME) project. The research team will identify all relevant applications for I-4 FRAME along with the data to be collected for each application. These will consider a comprehensive performance measurement framework for the use cases identified. Part A of the research will also provide a comprehensive evaluation of the "before" conditions for the study area. The objective of Part B in the research project is to provide data management, sharing and stakeholder coordination support for implementation of the I-4 FRAME project. Part B results will help to assess impacts of the deployed technologies in the I-4 FRAME project and help in assessing expansion of safety and mobility applications to similar corridors statewide.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:30:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1840374</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SPR-4441: Public Acceptance of INDOT’s Transportation Services</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1653583</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A statewide public opinion survey is proposed to complement the current INDOT customer satisfaction survey and measure public acceptance and awareness of current traffic engineering infrastructure treatments, use of common traffic control devices, and practices in traffic operations and transportation systems management. The statewide public opinion survey results can assist INDOT to identify areas that there is a misunderstanding or lack of awareness of its current infrastructure treatments and practices.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:10:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1653583</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Preliminary Investigations</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1441841</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The purpose of this Agreement is to secure a Contractor to support the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans), Division of Research, Innovation and System Information (DRISI) by producing successful Preliminary Investigation (PI) reports which endorse the requesting Caltrans divisions' Strategic Goals of safety, stewardship, delivery, professional workforce, and system performance. The Contractor must have the ability to work cooperatively with DRISI managers, engineers, planners and administrative staff to ensure a quality product is delivered in an efficient manner.  Caltrans is committed to suing all resources in the most effective and efficient manner. Prior to making investment decisions on research projects for a particular topic, DRISI conducts PI to review historical and existing nationwide and  international research projects and practices on these topics. The PI report results are critical in assessing and prioritizing future research investments and project development. A PI report is a literature search and survey of best practices nationally and internationally.  The PI are usually derived from research requests identified by DRISI's customers (Caltrans Division of Design, Construction, Environmental,Maintenance, Planning, Traffic Operations, and other Caltrans divisions).  These request PI topics cover a broad range of transportation technical and strategic subject matters.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 10:54:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1441841</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AASHTO Rep to SAE DSRC Technical Committee</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1440830</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In 2004, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) selected the standards development organization Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to develop standards for the message sets  to be used by applications for dedicated short range communications (DSRC), now a part of the Connected Vehicle initiative. Volunteers from industry, academia, and the public sector work on developing the language and technology for the standards.  American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) asked Caltrans to provide a public sector member for the SAE Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) Technical committee.  Caltrans sent a planner to provide support for early identification and development of use cases, then an intelligent transportation engineering expert was sent when the technical standards were being fleshed out. As well as providing traffic engineering subject matter expertise, Caltrans provides critical representation for the public on the industry dominated committee by working cooperatively with the committee members and other subject matter experts to make sure that the standards meet AASHTO needs and that the standards developed by IEEE and SAE work together as a complete system.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:39:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1440830</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Developing Guidelines and Documentation of Engineering Studies for Establishing NC Speed Limits</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1423763</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objectives of the proposed project are (1) to provide more precise guidelines to the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on how its engineers should conduct speed limit studies for various roadway settings and (2) to recommend ways by which the NCDOT can document those studies.  The researchers will accomplish the objectives listed above by completing eight tasks, including a survey of state transportation agencies, discussions with engineers and lawyers in NC, and field tests of the proposed guidelines.  The project is estimated to finish within one year.  NCDOT can use the developed research products to streamline the studies that engineers conduct to support recommended speed limits.  Knowing more precisely which studies are needed in which circumstances will help NCDOT engineers set better speed limits and avoid wasted study efforts.  
Appropriate speed limits in turn should result in better driver compliance, easier enforcement, and fewer crashes.  Conducting the right studies and being able to produce full documentation when requested should reduce liability risks as well. To be fully implemented, the research products should be integrated into the Traffic Engineering Policies, Practices, and Legal Authority (TEPPL) and be circulated to the Divisions and other units that perform studies for speed limits.
 
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:41:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1423763</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation of Change and Clearance Intervals Prior to the Flashing Yellow Arrow Permissive Left-Turn Indication</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1359249</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The flashing yellow arrow (FYA) has been the focus of many research efforts over the past 20 years. Those efforts culminated in the inclusion of the FYA as a permissive left-turn and right-turn indication in the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Implementation of FYA across the country has rapidly increased with hundreds of installations by cities and states. An alternative to the FYA is the flashing red arrow (FRA) that is available when stopping before turning is desired. Some agencies have adopted the FRA as their standard permissive left-turn indication. 
One of the issues with the implementation of the FYA/FRA indications that has not been effectively addressed is the change and clearance interval sequence prior to the permissive interval that most effectively communicates the desired action to road users. For example, many jurisdictions use both the yellow arrow change indication and the red arrow clearance indication when transitioning from the protected movement to the FYA. Although not currently required by the MUTCD, some traffic engineers believe that the solid red arrow is needed to effectively communicate to drivers that the left-turn movement has switched from protected to permissive. Other traffic engineers allow an immediate transition from the solid yellow arrow change interval to the permissive indication. The human factors and operational impacts of these alternative sequences have not been explored and traffic engineers need guidance. 
Tradeoffs between safety and operational efficiency are common in all aspects of transportation engineering. Determining an appropriate balance is often difficult due to the number of confounding factors. In this case, a direct assessment of the safety performance of the alternative indication sequences is cost prohibitive due to the difficulty in determining whether the change and clearance intervals contributed to a crash and the likely small number of these types of crashes. A human factors approach is therefore being taken. This research is intended to provide greater clarity on the performance of these alternative sequences so that, to the extent feasible, a tradeoff assessment can be made using data rather than perceptions. 
Some agencies are using a solid red arrow between the protected and permitted intervals for purposes other than clearance. Examples include providing time for an opposing queue to process or as a leading pedestrian interval. These types of applications are not being addressed in this research.
The objective of this research was to develop guidelines for the use of solid yellow arrow change and solid red arrow clearance intervals after a leading solid green arrow transitioning to a permissive FYA or FRA based upon their human factors and efficiency implications. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2015 01:00:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1359249</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Research for AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways. Task 370. Development of a Strategic Plan for the Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering (SCOTE)</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1350636</link>
      <description><![CDATA[AASHTO has recently adopted a new Strategic Plan. While the Highway Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering (SCOTE) has not had a strategic plan in the past, alignment of the Subcommittee’s goals, objectives, and strategies with the AASHTO Strategic Plan is desirable.
 
The Subcommittee has traditionally been closely aligned with the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Devices (NCUTCD) in supporting the upkeep of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). While this will continue to be important, the traffic engineering profession is experiencing radical changes and positive improvements. Of particular interest are the emerging technologies involving connected and autonomous vehicles, active management of arterials and dynamic optimization of traffic signals, and maturity in freeway operations to improve throughput and increased travel time reliability. Another important trend is the consideration of all travelers in the planning, design, and operation of the transportation system.
  
The objective of this research was to develop a strategic plan (including implementation steps) for SCOTE that presents a comprehensive vision for SCOTE’s future activities, including providing guidance to the highest decision-making bodies in the transportation profession in the subcommittee’s areas of expertise. 

]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2015 01:00:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1350636</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Research for AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways. Task 334. Primer on the Joint Use of the HSM and HFG</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1332063</link>
      <description><![CDATA[To create a primer for highway planners, designers and traffic engineers that explain how the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and Human
Factors Guidelines (HFG) can be used jointly in the planning and development of new and improved road design projects. The primer will illustrate a five-step process and provide computational examples that can be easily used by highway planners, designers and traffic engineers. The primer will permit the highway planner, designer and traffic engineer to provide for the needs and limitations of the road user, thus enhancing road design and operational safety for all.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2014 01:00:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1332063</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Road Diet or No Road Diet: a Case Study of the Fifth Street Corridor</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1236253</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The "Fifth Street Corridor" is the section of Fifth that runs between A Street and L Street through Downtown Davis. This corridor serves many modes of transportation, including vehicles, delivery trucks, buses, emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. How the corridor is configured impacts these modes of transportation and the properties, businesses, and events served by the corridor. In the recent couple of years, discussions of the Fifth Street corridor raised several issues related to pedestrian safety, bicycle connectivity through the downtown core area, motor vehicle travel impacts in terms of delay and accidents, and economic impacts to the downtown business community. Different strategies were explored by the city traffic engineers to address these issues, which included mostly traffic engineering fixes ( e.g., changing the operations of the F and G Street signals on Fifth Street (CIP #8714)). While the city implemented some of the traffic engineering strategies, an alternative strategy, a road diet to reduce the number of lanes from 2 to 1 and adding a bike lane in each direction, was proposed by the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association. The city traffic engineers did not embrace this road diet plan, citing a study commissioned by the city that such a plan reduces the capacity for vehicle movements and creates unduly long delays for cross street traffic. Some members of the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association believed that the study commissioned by the city was flawed and would like to have a separate, independent study of the road diet plan, and compare it with other alternative plans. In recognizing the limitations of the prior study and the myriad interests that the Fifth Street Corridor commands from the local constituencies, the relevant staff was asked to prepare a plan to address the subject in a more comprehensive manner, and to engage the community to gain a better understanding of the full breadth of interests and issues. This project performs a systematic evaluation of various alternative traffic engineering/road diet plans for the Fifth Street Corridor, and attempts to ferret out the entangled relations between road design, traffic behavior, traffic safety, system efficiency and mode share, so as to draw useful guidelines for the adoption of road diet plans in small to medium sized communities.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:43:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1236253</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluate Sensys and Radar Detectors</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1234299</link>
      <description><![CDATA[DRI has expended a considerable amount of time and engineering effort in a previous project (Record 683) developing a new type of traffic detector that has now been commercialized by the company: ""Sensys"". Sensys uses a small magnetometer glued into the roadway to wirelessly communicate traffic data. It has been developed as a potential supplement or replacement for loop detectors, avoiding the time and cost of trenching in wires. HQ Operations has expressed great interest in the Sensys detector, and asked for a thorough evaluation. This evaluation effort was originally started in early 2006, and resulted in the report at http://onramp.dot.ca.gov/newtech/offices/traffic_operations_research/tsrd_branch/sensys_eval_report_3.pdf . Although this earlier effort was terminated for institutional reasons outlined in the report, it did result in some changes in the way the Sensys data is processed, effectively doubling the detector's accuracy and getting it above the minimum threshold set by Operations. However, it was not possible to evaluate Sensys under all traffic conditions before the effort was terminated. Traffic Operations has requested a more thorough evaluation of Sensys across all types of traffic conditions. It is hoped that enough of the institutional constraints will be lifted by the end of the 2006/7 FY to allow the evaluation to continue once again and meet the need requested by Operations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:10:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1234299</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Validation and Calibration of Smart-Growth Land-Use Projects Trip-Generation Rates Spreadsheet</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1234298</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A qualified traffic engineering contractor will collect and assess field-test data to validate and calibrate the  trip generation rates ""spreadsheet"" that was developed previously.  This is a deployable analysis tool for estimating the quantities and modes of travel associated with proposed urban infill and other land use projects with smart growth characteristics. Equations in the spreadsheet will be adjusted as necessary based on this validation table, and technical assistance will be provided to practitioners on using the spreadsheet for transportation impact analyses of proposed land use projects in California.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:10:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1234298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>