<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>Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) Design Guidance</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2593933</link>
      <description><![CDATA[One-third of Kentucky’s traffic collisions occur at intersections, accounting for 35% of injury-related crashes and 20% of fatal crashes. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has recognized Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) intersections as an effective design strategy for reducing fatal and injury crashes. Over 25 RCUT intersections have been constructed in Kentucky in a variety of settings, from rural and suburban isolated intersections to urban and rural corridors. Currently, Kentucky lacks state-specific guidance to inform the planning, design, construction, and operation of RCUT intersections. Developing tailored guidance will facilitate planning analysis and location selection, public involvement needs, intersection control selection (i.e., unsignalized or signalized), traffic operational analysis (open to traffic and future year), safety performance, geometric design, multimodal accommodations, signing and striping layouts, intersection lighting, and constructability.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 11:32:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2593933</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SPR-5020: Identifying Locations with Abnormally High Wrong Way Driving or Interstate U-Turns</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2577103</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Wrong way driving on Interstate entrance ramps and illegal U-Turns are emerging as safety concerns. These types of crashes are relatively infrequent, highly dependent on crash report narrative, and difficult to track at scale for systematically identifying locations that are candidates for mitigation measures. Connected vehicle data provides an important data source that scales well for developing procedures to identify wrong way driving and illegal Interstate U-Turns.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:59:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2577103</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Guide on Alternative Intersections and Interchanges


</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381742</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Alternative intersection and interchange (A.I.I.) designs initially emerged as a way to improve safety and operations while reducing project costs and impacts, with the potential to enhance facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Early consideration and implementation by agencies were supported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Alternative Intersections/Interchanges Informational Report and a series of informational guides published since 2014. More recently, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) released an annotated outline for an updated informational report, and FHWA published a new guide focused on pedestrian and bicyclist safety at alternative intersections. Additionally, recent NCHRP reports provide detailed guidance on roundabouts, multimodal safety at alternative intersections, and intersection control evaluation.

Research is needed to develop a guide on several widely adopted intersection types, reflecting the growing knowledge and experience from successful implementations by many DOTs. The guide also will focus on expanding the toolbox of A.I.I. types and options to help DOTs enhance multimodal transportation safety and operational efficiency.

The objective of this research is to develop a guide to support state DOTs and other transportation agencies in considering A.I.I.s in their project planning and development process. The guide will consist of two parts: Part I will provide comprehensive information on U-turn-based intersections, covering key issues related to planning, implementation, operation, and maintenance; and Part II will provide an expanded resource on A.I.I.s, focusing on the efficacy of underutilized, emerging, or new concepts, as well as their variations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2024 12:59:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381742</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Developing sight distance guidelines for U-turn maneuvers</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2339986</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The goals of this research project are to develop a structured set of guidelines and specifications for appropriate sight distances for U-turn maneuvers, tailored for Georgia roadways that can be included in the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) policy for traffic operations, design, and safety.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:41:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2339986</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Developing Crash Modification Factors for Alternative Intersections</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1854205</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Alternative intersection designs, including the Displaced Left Turn (DLT), Median U-Turn (MUT), and Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT), have been implemented nationwide to reduce congestion, crash frequency, and crash severity. The reduced number of traffic signal phases and conflict points at these intersections can improve traffic operations and safety. Much research has been conducted to develop safety performance functions (SPFs) and crash modification factors (CMFs) for various intersection designs and control types as well as conversions of traditional intersections to other forms including roundabouts. Other studies have been conducted to evaluate the safety benefits of different intersection designs.
 
The use of alternative intersections in the United States has increased substantially in recent years, including combinations of alternative intersection elements at different approaches to the same intersection. The operational benefits of alternative intersections compared with conventional intersections are well established. The reduced number of conflict points for alternative intersections has demonstrated safety advantages over conventional intersections. Studies show significantly lower crash rates with MUTs and RCUTs for both corridor-wide and intersection-related data. Lower crash rates for DLTs are also supported by intersection data following DLT installation; however, potential safety concerns have been expressed, especially for older drivers and those unfamiliar with alternative intersections.
 
Research is needed to develop quantitative safety analysis methodologies for certain types of alternative intersections that are not currently available in resources such as the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual and CMF Clearinghouse. The research would inform transportation agencies, industry, and the public of the safety benefits of alternative intersections by quantifying the predicted reduction in crash frequency and severity resulting from conversion of conventional intersections to DLT, MUT, RCUT, or other alternative intersections. Ultimately, it would help transportation professionals evaluate alternative intersection strategies in terms of safety benefits and support progress towards Vision Zero goals across the United States.
 
 
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this research are the following: 1) Determine the current knowledge and research gaps in quantitative crash prediction methodologies for alternative intersections, which include but are not limited to DLT, MUT, and RCUT;  2) Develop, modify, and statistically validate crash predictive methodologies such as SPFs, CMFs, and crash severity distributions to quantify the safety effects of these alternative intersections; 3) Where development of quantitative methodologies may not be possible, identify risk factors, proxies, or surrogates for vulnerable road users consistent with these methodologies.
 
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2021 19:25:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1854205</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation of Cost‐effective Alternative Designs for Rural Expressway Intersections</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1635479</link>
      <description><![CDATA[High-speed expressways functionally operate like freeways but have at-grade intersections that provide critical access to communities via minor roadways. These intersections provide key economic entry points to jobs and economic development and serve as lifelines for rural communities. They also provide ingress and egress for emergency vehicles and serve as evacuation routes in cases of natural disaster. As planning, design, operational and/or safety concerns arise at these at-grade intersections a typical response from concerned agencies can include either closure of such intersections leading to inequitable adverse economic and other impacts on the surrounding communities, install warning signs, or explore the construction of high-cost grade-separated interchanges. This research proposes to conduct an assessment of the role that a cost-effective alternative design, known as a Restricted Crossing U-turn (R-CUT) or J-turn intersection, can play in solving access problems on high-speed expressways in the States of California and Florida. In discussions with key stakeholders (San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), Caltrans, and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)) investigators have identified the reasons why these intersection treatments are rarely considered in these large states. Chief among them is the reluctance to divert drivers off the shortest path and the novelty of the design. This collaborative proposal by Cal Poly SLO and University of South Florida (USF) is developed with the help and support from SLOCOG, Caltrans, and FDOT to help address these issues so that innovative intersection infrastructure design (i.e., R-CUT) are included among the alternatives considered during the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) process. The stakeholders noted the need for evidence of the effectiveness of these treatments to realize the potential cost-savings and access improvements. The effectiveness of the J-turn design will be demonstrated to stakeholders using i) surrogate safety and operational measures obtained through conflict analysis of traffic simulation data; and ii) Empirical Bayes (EB) before-after analysis. Both these sets of evaluations are critically needed before R-CUT designs are routinely considered by two of the largest DOTs in the U.S. Simulation models will not only provide the data for surrogate safety/operational measures but can also help stakeholders and the general public visualize the functioning of the intersection treatment; thereby supporting outreach, tech transfer, and stakeholder decision-making for this research. San Luis Obispo Council of Governments is supporting the work through matching funds from the State Transportation Partnership Program.  ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2019 10:24:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1635479</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Investigation of Driving Behavior at Alternative Intersection Designs and Safety Improvement: A Driver Simulator Study</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1593709</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Intersections have been of major interest to traffic engineers because there are many conflicts between road users, and it poses a great exposure to safety risk and traffic congestion. Recently, several types of alternative intersection designs have been suggested and implemented in some states to alleviate the traffic safety and congestion problems. Many studies have shown that alternative intersections have improved efficiency but the effects on safety are still controversial. Most of the alternative intersection designs reduce the number of conflict points, and theoretically they could improve traffic safety. Nevertheless, the alternative intersections require different vehicle maneuvers. Such different and unexpected driving maneuvers might confuse drivers, especially those who are not familiar with the new design and elderly drivers. In the recent study, it was shown that non-motorized road users (i.e., pedestrians and bicyclists) are particularly exposed to severe crashes at the alternative intersections. Therefore, there is a need to explore driving behavior at such alternative intersections and provide effective solutions to minimize the confusion and improve traffic safety. The safety effects of warning messages through connected vehicle technologies (e.g., vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I)) at the alternative intersections could be evaluated as well. The team will focus on median U-Turn intersections (or Michigan left-turn intersections) and continuous Green T-intersections (or seagull intersections).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:57:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1593709</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>