<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=PHNlYXJjaD48cGFyYW1zPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJzdWJqZWN0aWQiIHZhbHVlPSIxNzg3IiAvPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJkYXRlaW4iIHZhbHVlPSI3MzAiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9InN1YmplY3Rsb2dpYyIgdmFsdWU9Im9yIiAvPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJ0ZXJtc2xvZ2ljIiB2YWx1ZT0ib3IiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9ImxvY2F0aW9uIiB2YWx1ZT0iMTYiIC8+PC9wYXJhbXM+PGZpbHRlcnMgLz48cmFuZ2VzIC8+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>Regulatory Assessment for Remote Assistance and Remote Driving</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2664622</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Automated driving systems (ADS) may rely on assistance from remote users. This operation may take the form of remote assistance, also referred to as teleassistance, where a remote user provides strategic advice to an ADS encountering a situation it cannot manage. In other instances, it may take the form of remote driving, also referred to as teleoperations or remote operations, where the remote user performs some or all of the real-time dynamic driving task (DDT) including braking, steering, acceleration, and transmission shifting. 

Although these technologies are actively in use, there is little understanding of the technological, operational, and legal challenges associated with their use from a government perspective. There are no standards governing minimum performance requirements of these systems such as minimum latency, network uptime, operator response time, minimum staffing levels, and remote user training standards. 
Many state ADS laws do not address remote users, and when they do, they merely require a valid license. Additionally, no state currently requires ADS to disclose to passengers when they are being controlled by remote drivers. 

Given the unknowns and potential safety concerns, more information is needed that can be used to develop more receptive regulations and standards, as well as better awareness of passengers utilizing these technologies
         ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2026 17:28:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2664622</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices. Topic 57-20. Practices Related to Offroad Vehicles Sharing the Road, Path, and Trail</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2630494</link>
      <description><![CDATA[n many rural areas, offroad and special purpose vehicles [e.g., all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), utility task vehicles (UTVs), four-wheelers, golf carts, and dirt bikes] share the roadway with cars and trucks. These vehicles also share trails and paths with pedestrians and cyclists. Users of offroad vehicles may be unaware of how they can legally mix with existing traffic on roads, paths, and trails. There is a gap in knowledge about how state departments of transportation (DOTs) manage offroad vehicles and the challenges these vehicles may pose.

The objective of this synthesis is to document state DOT practices for offroad vehicles on roads, paths, and trails. 

Information to be gathered includes (but is not limited to): Current state laws or regulations governing the registration and operation of offroad vehicles on different classifications of roadways, paths, and trails; Data utilized by state DOTs to determine ownership/usage rates and safety issues; and State DOT coordination with local jurisdictions.

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.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 03:51:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2630494</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Aspects of Airport Programs. Topic 18-01. Legal Responsibilities Arising Out of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Air Carrier Access Act</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625813</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) ensure the rights and accommodations of individuals with disabilities in the United States. The ADA provides a comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including in employment, public accommodations, and transportation. The ACAA addresses the rights of passengers with disabilities in air travel and requires airlines to accommodate the needs of these individuals.    

Airlines and airports play critical roles in implementing these laws. Airlines are responsible for ensuring that their services, from booking to boarding, are accessible, while airports must provide accessible facilities. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) also have regulatory authority over air travel, including consumer protections, safety, and operational standards. While FAA's primary focus is on safety and efficiency of the national airspace system, it plays a supporting role in ensuring compliance with accessibility standards through various policies and guidance. It includes collaboration with the DOT, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and other agencies to ensure that regulations and guidance related to disability accommodations are upheld. However, the intersection of the ADA and ACAA can create challenges, as the ADA covers public spaces such as airport terminals, and the ACAA governs the treatment of passengers by airlines within the airport terminal.

The objective of this research is to examine the legal obligations for airports and airlines arising out of the ADA and the ACAA, including accommodations for visible and invisible physical and mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 16:04:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625813</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Aspects of Airport Programs. Topic 18-02. Role of Legal Counsel During an Airport Emergency</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625812</link>
      <description><![CDATA[All airports face risks from emergencies, whether man-made, mechanical, or natural. While 14 C.F.R. Part 139 Airports are required to establish an Airport Emergency Plan to address at least nine types of emergencies, some airports also create emergency plans to manage and plan for their response. The role of the Airport’s legal counsel in the AEP should be examined at various airports, considering steps airport legal counsel can take preparing, responding, recovering from major emergencies to support prompt emergency response and mitigate liability and risk to the airport.  

The report will provide analysis to explain the legal requirements for an Airport Emergency Plan (AEP) under 14 C.F.R. Part 139, identify other statutes and regulations that create responsibilities for emergency response outside of 14 C.F.R. Part 139, as well as other emergency plans airports implement. Additionally, it should evaluate tools an airport legal counsel can utilize, both in terms of emergency planning and conducting typical airport business to help manage potential risks during an emergency. It should discuss the roles of legal counsel and resources they can utilize during and immediately following the initial response and examine the benefits and drawbacks to these approaches. The report should include two or three case studies that explore whether and how legal counsel supports the Airport in responding to and recovering from an emergency.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 15:52:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625812</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Changing Landscape of Environmental Reviews under NEPA for Airports</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625811</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Prior to 2025, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and airports utilized the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations to review projects subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In 2024 in Marin Audubon Society v. FAA the DC circuit found the CEQ regulations ultra vires and in 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v.  Eagle County the U.S. Supreme Court held that agencies’ determinations related to the boundaries of environmental review are entitled to substantial deference, and clarified that reasonably forseeable effects are close in time and space to the project being reviewed, and subject to the agency’s regulatory authorities. The CEQ regulations were fully rescinded in February 2025. Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued Order 5610.1D, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, and FAA issued Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures. Additionally, the 2023 Fiscial Responsibility Act ammendments to NEPA and the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act resulted in significant changes to agencies’ historical NEPA practices.

OBJECTIVE: This report will summarize the major changes in statutory and regulatory requirements, provide an overview of how Section 743 of the 2024 Reauthorization Act intersects with FAA’s National Enviornmental Policy Act (NEPA) obligations (e.g. segmentation, connected actions), and address how these changes interplay with state and local environmental laws. It should provide strategies for integrating local, state, and federal planning and environmental and permitting requirements to facilitate expedited project delivery. This report should update ACRP LRD 22, The Role of the Airport Sponsor in Airport Planning and Environmental Reviews of Proposed Development Projects Under the NEPA and State Mini-NEPA Laws.

]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 15:14:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625811</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Implications for Permitting Airport Service Providers</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625810</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Airlines and other airport aeronautical tenants often contract with airport service providers, or third party contractors, for a variety of services that are integral to their operations, including ground handling (above and below the wing,) aircraft cabin cleaning, catering, etc. Many of these third party contractors do not have a direct contractual relationship with the airport operator, but serve one or more of the airport’s aeronautical tenants. Airport operators take varying approaches to addressing risk associated with the activities of these service providers, which can range from hands-off to complex permitting programs and everything in between. Whether the airport relies on agreements with the aeronautical tenants receiving the third-party services by issuing permits to third party contractors, imposing rules and regulations, etc., each approach poses different legal issues and potential liability.

OBJECTIVE: The report will discuss the different approaches for addressing risk to the airport operator when permitting airport aeronautical tenants to contract with airport service providers, and the legal implications related to indeminifciation, insurance rquirements, operating standards, and other approaches for managing risk. While the legal implications of permitting airport aeronautical tenants to contract with airport service providers, or third-party contractors, are multifaceted, and the report will focus on the relationship between the airport service proivder and the airport operator. The report should include examples  of the different approaches used in the industry, with sample language from contracts, permits, rules & regulations, etc.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 14:57:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625810</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Examining Attribution of Fault in Fatal &amp; Serious Injury Crashes between Drivers and Vulnerable Road Users</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625585</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Traffic crashes killing or severely injuring pedestrians and bicyclists have increased dramatically in the past 10 years in the US. Research has found media and police narratives to play a strong role in shaping public opinion around strategies to prevent crashes involving vulnerable road users (VRUs), including whether those narratives attribute blame to the VRU victim. In California, following a crash, data are collected by law enforcement officers who make a determination of the “party most at fault.” Concerns exist as to whether fault in crash report data is over-attributed to VRUs, but no systematic research has assessed this.   We will utilize 2016-2023 electronically reported California Crash Reporting System data to identify the presence of a crash witness at each fatal or serious injury (FSI) single-vehicle/VRU crash, under the hypothesis that fault is more accurately attributed when a witness is present. Because VRU victims involved in FSI crashes with a motor vehicle are often unconscious, in transport to a hospital, or deceased at the time of the crash investigation, only the driver’s perspective is incorporated into police reports in the absence of a witness, while the presence of a witness provides additional and, we hypothesize, more objective information. The specific research question is: is the presence of a witness associated with a higher probability that the driver will be named at fault in FSI crashes between a driver and a VRU compared to crashes between a driver and a VRU when no witness is present?  We will use logistic regression to estimate the probability of the driver being attributed fault in crashes where a witness was present compared to crashes with no witness. If the probability is higher when a witness is present, we will discuss the likelihood that this implies that fault is systemically over-attributed to the VRU when there is no witness vs. other explanations. We will control for neighborhood and investigate if the effect of a witness on attribution varies according to reporting agency, victim attributes, or victim mode.  The overall goal will be to estimate minimum correction factors and 95% confidence intervals for VRU-involved crashes so statistics on attribution of fault can be adjusted for future research or in policy settings.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 15:03:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625585</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Model as a Legal Deliverable: Exploring the Technological, Implementation, and Legislative Pathways for ODOT
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2617997</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) currently has no process in place to allow for the delivery of Building Information Modelling (BIM)  models as part of the project contract, nor does ODOT have a full grasp of all the regulations or codes that exist in Ohio that may prevent or support this process. While ODOT develops 2D/3D models for design, that data is used to create traditional (2D) plan sheets and supplemented with extensive documentation before being provided as reference information on a construction contract. The contractor then uses the design information from the plan sheets which are the contract document and will generate a new 2D/3D model to be used to understand construction needs and for their due diligence, usually at a cost to ODOT. With new technology and the implementation of BIM for Infrastructure strategies, there is an opportunity to streamline processes, enhance collaboration, and improve design/construction accuracy through the development and delivery of model-based deliverables. Other states have already begun adopting BIM models as legal deliverables and have demonstrated the benefits of native model-based and advanced digital delivery processes.

There is a pressing need to modernize ODOT's approach to model deliverables to keep pace with technological advancements and industry standard practices. Research is needed to provide a comprehensive analysis of benefits and challenges associated with adopting a model-based approach.  The goal of this study is to determine the feasibility and implications of adopting a model as a legal deliverable approach for transportation projects in Ohio. 
                       ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2025 14:22:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2617997</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Laws, Ordinances, and Practices Related to All-Terrain Vehicles and Utility Task Vehicles</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2593923</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Researchers will examine on-road allowances of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and utility task vehicles (UTVs) in Illinois per county as well as analyze other state’s practices. They will develop a report that may be presented to legislators that provides the risks and potential benefits of allowing ATVs and UTVs on roadways. The research will allow Illinois Department of Transportation to make better policy decisions as well as reduce fatalities and injury crashes associated with ATVs and UTVs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 10:08:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2593923</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Turn-on-Red Prohibitions for Dual Right-Turn Lanes</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2593920</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The project will examine right turn on red at signalized intersections where there are two right-turn lanes. Researchers will study the impacts of different right-turn-on-red configurations at various locations on safety performance and traffic level of service by analyzing crash and traffic data as well as observing travel behaviors at selected intersections. The researchers will develop recommendations for right-turn-on-red policies, helping transportation agencies to improve traffic safety and travel efficiency as well as ensure consistent practices across Illinois Department of Transportation districts.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 09:56:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2593920</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Synthesis of Information Related to Transit Practices. Topic SG-21. Examining Delivery Models for Law Enforcement on Public Transit
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2576269</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Public transit agencies across the United States are working to address security challenges, which have amplified since the COVID-19 pandemic. Shifts in travel patterns have reduced traditional peak-period ridership. Agencies are reporting an increased proportion of riders experiencing mental health and/or substance use challenges, higher levels of fare evasion, greater use of transit systems by unhoused individuals seeking shelter, and an overall increase in behaviors that violate agency codes of conduct.

In response, transit agencies have adopted a range of approaches to address both rider and worker safety. A common theme has been expanded using law enforcement-related strategies. The common models include: (1) dedicated transit police departments; (2) contracted law enforcement services provided by local or regional police departments; and (3) hybrid models that combine sworn law enforcement with contracted security, civilian ambassadors, or other non-sworn personnel.

Transit agencies now face the challenge of determining which enforcement approaches are appropriate, effective, and cost-efficient within their operating environments. While each model presents advantages and disadvantages related to budget implications, transparency and accountability considerations, identifying what works and what’s most effective in reversing this trend is essential – while recognizing that the right approach may not be a one-size-fits-all solution. TCRP has conducted work related to this topic – fare evasion (2022), homelessness on transit systems (2024), customer perceptions of safety and security (2025), and impacts of drug use (2025). However, to date, no TCRP research examined how different law enforcement delivery models are structured, governed, and deployed within transit agencies, nor how these models influence safety, security, and customer and employee experiences.

The objective of this synthesis is to document and better understand how public transit agency’s structure, manage, and utilize law enforcement delivery models to support public safety. The synthesis will examine how transit police departments and other enforcement partners deploy resources; how agencies coordinate with law enforcement and non-law enforcement partners; and how different delivery models influence safety outcomes, code-of-conduct enforcement, and rider and workforce experience.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2025 14:36:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2576269</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Tools to Support Enforcement of Micromobility Traffic Laws and Crash Reporting




</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2570610</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The rise of micromobility devices, including e-scooters, e-bikes, and other personal transportation technologies, has transformed urban transportation. The proliferation of these devices has introduced new challenges for law enforcement. The characteristics of micromobility devices—small size, high maneuverability, lack of registration, and shared usage models—create complexities for traffic enforcement and crash reporting. Additionally, traffic safety laws in many states are often unclear with regard to micromobility, providing limited guidance to law enforcement officers in regulating these devices. 

Crashes involving micromobility devices are often underreported. Furthermore, legal ambiguity and limited police training exacerbate the difficulty of enforcing traffic laws and properly reporting crashes involving micromobility devices. These gaps hinder efforts to ensure the safety of all road users. Research is needed to assess these challenges and develop actionable recommendations to improve enforcement practices, reporting protocols, and interagency collaboration. 

The objective of this research is to develop a toolkit to improve the state of the practice related to enforcement of traffic safety laws for micromobility users and crash reporting. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:24:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2570610</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Managing and Sharing Traffic Management Systems Video

</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558409</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Traffic management systems (TMSs), which integrate advanced technologies, software, and data, are essential tools for enhancing the safety, efficiency, and reliability of surface transportation. These systems play a vital role in helping agencies meet the growing and evolving mobility needs of travelers, service providers, partner agencies, and the general public.

Traditionally, TMSs provided only static images of roadway conditions, but technological advancements have transformed this practice into 24/7 live-streaming video feeds of traffic conditions. Increasingly, individuals and private companies are capturing, scraping, or archiving these video feeds, and often repackaging and selling the data to public or private customers, raising legal, technical, and operational challenges for transportation agencies.

Most TMSs do not record or archive video feeds due to concerns over legal obligations and public information requests, risks of releasing sensitive or personally identifiable information (PII), potential liability from unintended uses, and technical burdens of video management. The rising expenses of data storage and telecommunications add complexity to video management.

Research is needed to help agencies evaluate the implications, benefits, and risks of sharing TMS video.

The objective of this research is to develop a guide for transportation agencies on managing and sharing access to TMS video. The research will identify current practices, challenges, unintended consequences, and opportunities for improvement.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 20:58:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558409</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Tort Liability and Shifting Legal Responsibility in the Safe System Approach</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558416</link>
      <description><![CDATA[One of the most significant federal policy frameworks addressing fatal and serious injury crashes in the United States is the Safe System Approach (SSA). The SSA recognizes that safety is a shared responsibility among all stakeholders, including road users, vehicle manufacturers, roadway designers and operators, law enforcement agencies, and post-crash care providers. Its main principle is that human errors are inevitable, and the transportation system should be designed and managed so those errors do not result in fatal or serious injuries.

However, the principle of shared responsibility and the proactive measures encouraged by the SSA have raised concerns about tort liability and the legal responsibilities of roadway designers and operators. These concerns are sometimes cited as reasons to avoid implementing roadway design changes or operational strategies that could modify driving behavior—even when such changes could substantially improve safety for all users. Research is needed to understand how tort liability laws affect the adoption of proactive roadway safety practices to help transportation professionals apply the SSA without being hindered by concerns about increased legal liability.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to develop a compendium that documents (1) how tort liability laws influence the adoption of proactive roadway safety practices and (2) noteworthy practices for implementing the SSA without being constrained by concerns over increased legal responsibilities.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 20:28:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558416</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Aspects of Airport Programs. Topic 16-03. Legal Requirements and Liabilities Arising from Airport Security</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2555868</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Airports want to create a travel environment that is efficient and responsive to passengers' needs without compromising security. Airport operators share responsibility for the ever-evolving security requirements with federal and local agencies. Security practices should be designed with individuals’ rights in mind, but finding a balance between safety and security and individuals’ rights can be a challenge. These challenges encompass all passengers, visitors, and airport workers subject to security protocols.

Airports are confronted with a multifaceted framework of requirements related to security, such as constitutional and civil rights and privacy, and new requirements and technology add complexity. Research is needed to support airports to understand their legal responsibilities, the potential risks, and the implications for airport operations, passengers, and stakeholders.

The objective of the research is to examine public facing airport security measures and help airports understand the legal requirements and liabilities arising from airport security. The final report should: (1) provide stakeholders with the current legal and regulatory airport security requirements; (2) identify the parties responsible (e.g., airport operator, federal agency, etc.); and (3) identify additional practices undertaken by airports that are not required by current legal and regulatory airport security requirements. The report should identify and analyze the risks or exposures that may arise in the context of these requirements and practices. The report should identify and analyze novel legal issues involved with anticipated or proposed airport security measures.

The research should supplement ACRP Legal Research Digest 27: The Fourth Amendment and Airports to include relevant cases decided after that publication.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 14:39:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2555868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>