<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.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>Icebreaker Acquisition and the Need for a National Maritime Strategy</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1628654</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This document is the statement of Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, before a hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.   The hearing was held on November 29, 2018.  O’Rourke testified on icebreaker acquisition and the need for a national maritime strategy.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:08:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1628654</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry: Federal Financial Assistance and Restructuring</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/892212</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The three domestically owned U.S. manufacturers of cars and light trucks are requesting federal financial assistance in the form of bridge loans to assure their ability to continue in business. The companies, General Motors (GM), Ford and Chrysler (collectively known as the Detroit 3), have directly appealed to Congress for aid in a series of hearings that began in November 2008. The companies have been affected by a long-term decline in U.S. market share, the impact of a general decline in U.S. motor vehicle sales in 2008 that has impacted all producers, and the effects of a severe constriction of credit, resulting from problems in U.S. and global financial markets.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:11:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/892212</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines Hearing on Transit and Over-The-Road Bus Security</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/780877</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This document discusses an oversight hearing that examined issues related to the security of transit and intercity bus systems, including the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Transit Administration and the Department of Homeland Security; the state of preparedness in the transit industry; and Federal programs and activities that help meet the security needs of U.S. public transportation systems.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:10:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/780877</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Another Temporary Extension</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/758765</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The article examines the reasons for the need for eight extensions for the TEA-21 reauthorization. The latest extension will only provide a breather through July 19.  While congressional negotiators continue to issue reassuring statements that they are coming "closer and closer" to an agreement, the fact remains that, until recently, they were unable to reach definitive closure on several key issues.  These included the minimum rate of return guarantee to the states on their payments into the Highway Trust Fund, the percentage of funds to be included in the formula used to calculate each state's rate of return, the authority to earmark projects and the share of funds to be allocated to transit.  Partly the reasons why the agreement has been so hard to reach are complex.  Partly they have to do with the different ways in which the two houses of Congress operate; another point of contention between the House and the Senate is the issue of the guaranteed rate of return and the related questions of the bill's "scope", i.e., the portion of the total highway funds in the bill to be included  in the calculation of each state's return.  One remaining  unanswered question is the position of the White House.  Will the Administration stick to its oft-repeated threat of vetoing any bill that exceeds the House adopted ceiling of $284 billion?  Or will it accept the $2.5 billion increase as the price of getting a major piece of legislation enacted?]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:57:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/758765</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Meeting the Challenge to Reauthorize the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: Will System Performance Continue to Be "Gone with the Wind"?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/758781</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This resource paper is intended to spur discussion for the Third National Conference on Transportation Finance.  To that end it gathers together material generated from numerous congressional hearings, actual experience in project delivery at the state and local levels, and important academic and economic analyses completed since the 2000 conference.  The issues raised here include the following:  (1) What should be the goal of reauthorization?  (2) Has the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) met the goals of maintaining system condition and performance and improving safety?  (3) What funding level will reauthorization need to establish to maintain condition and performance?  (4) What measures can reasonably be taken to achieve the goals?  It is hoped that this background, together with the presentations and discussions the conference will foster, will help participants come to a consensus on these issues and become effective advocates for the solutions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:43:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/758781</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Origins of the Interstate</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/757609</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper traces the origins of the Interstate highway system from its beginning in "the golden years of the highway program" under the leadership of Thomas H. MacDonald, head of the Bureau of Public Roads, through its various milestones, such as the First National Conference on Street and Highway Safety held in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 15-16, 1924, and the 1955 congressional hearings, to the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.  Many articles published during these years are reprinted throughout the paper as well as excerpts from the testimony of witnesses at the congressional hearings.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:58:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/757609</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Safety and Security Vital to America's Transportation System</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/751179</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper describes how the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the House of Representatives is working to ensure transportation safety and security, especially in the aviation field.  The Committee has passed legislation that requires the Secretary of Transportation to submit an annual report to Congress and to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on the status of each recommendation on the NTSB's "most wanted" list of safety improvements.  To improve transportation security, the Committee has conducted approximately 50 public hearings, held multiple classified meetings and briefings, worked with the Administration to make regulatory security improvements, and worked with the 9/11 Commission to implement expanded security programs.  Several pieces of legislation have been authored by this Committee to address the security issues raised in these hearings and meetings.  Although this article primarily concerns legislation addressing aviation safety and security, legislation designed to improve maritime, pipeline and railroad safety and security is also summarized.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2005 16:54:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/751179</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NEXT STEPS FOR THE AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/755066</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The is the statement of the Honorable Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, United States House of Representatives, regarding the next steps for the Air Traffic Organization (ATO).  Two years ago the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) took the first steps to create the ATO by appointing a Chief Operating Officer.  The expectations were that the new organization would be focused on accountability for performance and operate more like a business. Since that time, there has been progress in establishing the foundations that will be needed for meeting those expectations in the future.  This testimony focuses on the ATO's efforts to provide air traffic services that are both safe and efficient to an ever-increasing number of passengers and aircraft operations and to accomplish that mission in a cost-effective way.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/755066</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HEARING ON THE USE OF HYDROGEN FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY IN THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION AND PUBLIC LANDS, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 15, 2004</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/703385</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper presents the testimony of Anthony Eggert, Associate Research Director, Hydrogen Pathways Research Program Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis before the Subcommittee on National Park, Recreation and Public Lands, United States House of Representatives on hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cell vehicle technologies and the opportunities and challenges for using these technologies in our national parks. University of California, Davis is one of the world's leading university research centers for the study of advanced environmental vehicles and fuels including hybrids, fuel cells and hydrogen.  The following key points are emphasized in the testimony: 1. National Parks as demonstration sites - Our national parks are highly visible to visitors from around the country and around the world. As such, they offer a great opportunity to demonstrate a strong public commitment to new types of clean and efficient energy technologies such as renewable power, hydrogen and fuel cells. 2. Park demonstrations must provide real benefits - We must make sure that hydrogen and fuel cell deployment projects in our National Parks add value with respect to key environmental, technology development and educational goals. 3. Design demonstrations to guide the future - The Government can play a significant and helpful role by providing funding, acting as an early and technically proficient 'customer', and participating in education and outreach activities surrounding the new technology. 4. Key Considerations for National Park Demonstrations - Depending on the characteristics of any given park, the National Park Service might consider deploying hydrogen and fuel cells for the following applications: a. Hydrogen fuel cell fleet vehicles for applications where clean, quiet operations are highly valued and the vehicles can be used for a public education and outreach campaign; b. Stationary power and/or 'Energy stations' for the joint production of electric power (either back-up or continuous) for buildings and fuel for vehicles when the application provides real environmental benefits; c. Fuel cells for off-road vehicle applications. 5. Education and Research Essential for National Park Demonstrations - The heart of any hydrogen and fuel cell projects in the National Parks Service must be education and research.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2004 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/703385</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HOMELAND SECURITY: CRITICAL DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/697322</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This document discusses one of the most important issues of our time, the reorganization of government agencies and the reorientation of their missions to improve our nation's ability to better protect our homeland. It is important to recognize that this transition to a more effective homeland security approach is part of a larger transformation effort that our government must make to address emerging security, economic, demographic, scientific, technological, fiscal and other challenges of the 21st century and to meet the expectations of the American people for timely, quality and cost-effective public services. In the months since the horrible events of September 11th, the President and the Congress have responded with important and aggressive actions to protect the nation, including creating an Office of Homeland Security (OHS), passing new laws such as the USA Patriot Act and an initial emergency supplemental spending bill, establishing a new agency to improve transportation security, and working with unprecedented collaboration with federal, state, and local governments, private sector entities, non-governmental organizations, and other countries to prevent future terrorist acts and to bring to justice those individuals responsible for such terrible acts.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/697322</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NEW ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN THE REAUTHORIZATION OF TEA-21</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/688187</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The pending reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) offers significant opportunities for the transportation and ecology communities to seek substantial amounts of Federal transportation funding for ecological research to meet transportation environmental stewardship challenges. Recently, the Surface Transportation Cooperative Research Advisory Board and the Future Strategic Highway Research Program Task Force independently recommended ecological and other environmental research for funding in the TEA-21 reauthorization. By pro-actively participating in the TEA-21 reauthorization deliberations, transportation and ecological professionals can inform Congress of the benefits of substantially increasing the funding levels for ecological research to enhance transportation program delivery and environmental stewardship.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2004 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/688187</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RS20734: AVIATION DELAYS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/732545</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Flight delays and cancellation in the U.S. air transportation system rose to record levels in 2000. The problem costs the airlines an estimated $3 billion annually and causes great inconvenience for shippers and passengers. Billions of federal dollars are being spent to modernize the air traffic control (ATC) system, purchase new equipment and expand airport capacity. But the airlines express little confidence that these efforts will provide near-term relief or be enough in the long-term to accommodate the forecasted growth in air traffic up from about 670 million passengers this year to 1.0 billion forecast by 2010 and 1.5 billion by 2025. The ability of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to operate the ATC system, while simultaneously completing the modernization effort and overseeing airline safety, has been in question for some time. The rise in delays adds voice to calls for ATC reform and/or regulatory remedies. Since the mid 1980s, the airlines have pushed to have the ATC operate like a corporation, largely independent of the FAA. Others want a fully privatized the ATC system. Some have called for a return to government regulation of airline schedules, or at a minimum, to waive antitrust laws and allow the carriers to coordinate their own schedules. Still others want airports to take the lead and establish priority-pricing fees to constrain landings and takeoffs during peak periods at the busiest airports where the delay problem is the greatest. It is generally agreed that the problem is likely to get worse before it gets better, and that correcting it is an evolutionary process that will take years to accomplish. The answer may lie in a mix of solutions  technology, more runways, airline scheduling, and airspace redesign among them. To effectively administer federal resources, policy makers need better information about the problem, including the numbers and causes of delays, the maximum traffic loads the ATC and airport systems can handle, and when and how much relief to expect from modernization efforts.  The report discusses topics germane to aviation delays, such as measuring delay, causes of delay, administration and congressional actions, technological options, reform and regulatory options, and outlook for the future.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/732545</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS: ROADSIDE HAZARDS. HEARINGS BEFORE THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 90TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, MAY 23-25, JUNE 6, 8, 20-23, 27-29, JULY 18 AND 20, 1967</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/690546</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Past investigations and hearings of this subcommittee have resulted in the state highway departments and the Bureau of Public Roads focusing increased attention on important elements of the Federal-aid highway program.  These hearings should prove equally as valuable.  The subject matter of the present hearings is the building of safety features into our highways.  There are many unnecessary hazards within the rights-of-way of our highways.  Regardless of the reasons why a driver may leave the paved portion of a high-speed highway, roadside areas should be sufficiently clear of obstructions to give him an opportunity to regain control of his car.  Included in these hearings are the testimony and exhibits of witnesses.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/690546</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>END OF THE ROADS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/670121</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Forty five years ago, the National Capital Park and Planning Commission hired Harland Bartholomew to plan and design an interstate highway system for the District of Columbia.  His plan called for three circumferential highways in and around the city.  One would be about a half a mile north and south of the White House; the second would have a radius four miles from the White House, and the third would run about 10 miles from the White House. This is, in fact, the only part of the overall plan that actually was built and is known as the Capital Beltway. This article provides the colorful history of the powerful support for and public's opposition to the highway master plan and how the 20 year conflict resulted in the region's rapid transit system.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/670121</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ORAL TESTIMONY OF ARTBA PLANNING AND DESIGN DIVISION PRESIDENT WILLIAM H. GEORGE BEFORE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT CONCERNING H.R. 3700--HIGH SPEED RAIL INVESTMENT ACT OF 2000. JULY 25, 2000</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/670263</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This feature presents the oral testimony given by William H. George, president of the Planning and Design Division of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on July 25, 2000.  The testimony concerns H.R. 3700, the High-Speed Rail Investment Act of 2000, which would provide $10 billion in bonding authority for high-speed rail projects over the next 10 years.  The testimony maintains that one of the core principles underlying U.S. transportation policy is the imposition of federal transportation excise taxes to generate the revenue necessary for improving the safety and efficiency of the nation's transportation infrastructure.  It endorses a federal rail passenger ticket tax on federally supported rail routes and suggests that Congress also consider allowing rail facilities to impose a Passenger Facility Charge on passengers to help finance station improvements.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2000 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/670263</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>