<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>Estimating the Cost of Right-of-Way Acquisitions Along Texas Corridors</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2570760</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Right-of-way (R/W) acquisitions can be a significant component of a project’s total cost. When owners reject the compensation offered for their properties as insufficient, the project comes to a halt until an agreement can be reached and increased funding can be obtained. Moreover, the process of condemnation can delay project completion. The availability of accurate and consistent estimation tools is therefore essential to planning projects, meeting budget constraints, and avoiding project delays. In 2002, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) embarked on Research Project 0-4079, in which 285 R/W records from six major districts were used to investigate the relationship between parcel characteristics and parcel taking cost along Texas corridors. From these R/W records, hedonic price models were developed to serve as a cost estimation tool for R/W acquisitions. As a follow up, Implementation Project 5-4079 was commissioned in 2005 with the purpose of testing and re-calibrating the price models using data from an additional 500 parcels in five other different districts. Regression models for five land uses were explored. Further analysis of historical costs of parcels by district and county was conducted and summarized as tables of unit costs by land use. R/W acquisition cost estimates based on regression models, historical unit cost averages, and cost of similar properties have been made available via a user-friendly Microsoft Excel-based tool to assist in the early stages of project planning and budgeting.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2025 18:22:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2570760</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Condemnation Hierarchy—Competing Public Uses</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1671397</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Public-use property is property that is in use for a public purpose or that is set aside for a specific public purpose with the intention that the property be used for the specified purpose within a reasonable time. As the digest explains, state transportation departments appear to have sufficient authority to take public-use property for their highway and other transportation projects. However, there are some kinds of public-use property, such as parks and recreational areas, for which a transportation department may need specific statutory authority or legislative approval and/or must comply with statutory conditions and requirements before taking the public-use property.  The digest discusses four principal condemnation hierarchies that may be applied to takings of property for transportation projects. The hierarchies are based on (1) the identity and authority of the condemnor (e.g., the state) vis-à-vis other condemnors (e.g., municipalities and counties); (2) the identity of the owner of the public-use property (e.g., federal, state, or local government or a public agency) sought by eminent domain; (3) the relative importance of a proposed use in comparison to the public-use property’s present use (e.g., as a park, parkland, recreational area, wildlife refuge, or historic site); and (4) the inherent importance of a highway or other transportation project in comparison to a property’s current public use.  The digest analyzes state constitutional provisions and state statutes that apply to takings of public-use property. The digest analyzes in some detail § 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1996 as well as the impact of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) on takings for highway projects.  The digest discusses whether the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) and the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board (STB) preempt a transportation department’s taking of railroad property and whether the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would preempt a department’s taking of a gas or oil pipeline.  The digest explains how transportation departments may acquire land or an interest in land from the United States for a project and discusses the availability of FHWA assistance.  The research should serve as useful guidance to state and federal legislators, as well as administrators and lawyers, having an interest in the acquisition of public-use properties. The research also should be useful to property owners or others with an interest in property that is subject to condemnation by a governmental authority, be it federal, state, or local.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:40:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1671397</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Acquiring Real Property for Federal and Federal-aid Programs and Projects</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1667516</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This brochure explains your rights as an owner of real property to be acquired for a federally-funded program or project. It begins by defining important terms used in the brochure, then discusses the following:  property appraisal; just compensation; exceptions to the appraisal requirement; the written offer; acquisitions where condemnation will not be used; payment; possession; settlement; and condemnation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:59:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1667516</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>County Condemnation Manual</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1579128</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Condemnation case law contains many illustrations of claimed abuses or misuses of the power or process of eminent domain. Many of these situations arise out of a lack of experience in the use of eminent domain process. Most process or power questions could be avoided by implementing rational and fair acquisition policy. The County can not prevent landowners from suing to challenge the validity of condemnation proceedings or to stop or delay public works projects. The object should be to be in a position to win such challenges when they occur. Rational and fair acquisition policies provide a first effective line of legal defense against such challenges. Part I, Maintain A Rational Acquisition Policy, examines the acquisition process as a whole. It's purpose is to identify the concepts that must be considered in the development of acquisition policy. No landowner has a right to preferential treatment. All are entitled to be treated in a fair and consistent manner. All landowners have a right to a process that will provide reasonable assurance that they will be justly compensated for real property acquired by the county for public purposes. The manual does not propose a single set policy. It recognizes that counties need some flexibility in order to deal with a range of different federal, state and locally funded projects. There are even strictly local projects which require the donation of right of way as a condition for the county's approval of the project. Part II, Condemnation Document Standards, discusses title search systems to determine names and addresses of owners and interest holders. It recommends a system for delegating responsibility to produce condemnation documents. Part III, Condemnation Forms Preparation, identifies required and practical data. Failure to meet the information requirements for statutory condemnation documents can be eliminated by applying the principals in this part. The content form and format of most required condemnation forms are largely discretionary. This part illustrates some proven alternatives. Part IV, Serving Notice of Condemnation, identifies when personal service is required and how it can be made on individuals and corporations whose residence or place of business is both within and also outside the state. This part identifies special service requirements for public entities and public authorities. It also describes alternatives to obtaining service where owners or interest holders accept service, where they waive notice requirements or through personal appearances. Part V, Preparation for the Condemnation Hearing, functions as a check list. It is intended to assist the sheriff who is responsible to convene the Commission, the hearing officer for the County and also Compensation Commissioners. This part contains procedural suggestions and illustrations that can be used as drafting guides to prepare non-standard hearing related forms. Recommendations are made on how to resolve recurring legal and fairness issues and how to respond to property owner procedural demands. Part VI, Condemnation Hearing Presentations, identifies the normal flow of condemnation hearing proceedings. This part provides suggestions on how to make effective presentations and what information, forms and exhibits should be left to aid the Commission on their deliberations. This part also identifies factors that should be considered when deciding to accept an award or to appeal to the District Court. Part VII, County Alternative Condemnation Authority for County Roads, discusses when the special proceedings are useful and when they are inappropriate. The differences in the qualification of "appraisers" (commissioners under the uniform eminent domain system) between systems is considered and procedures are proposed for the presentation of value evidence.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2019 17:49:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1579128</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Liability of the State for Highway Traffic Noise</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1565421</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The purpose of this paper is to study the extent of the liability of the state for damage attributable to highway noise. The cause of action for noise damage lies either in inverse condemnation or direct condemnation. This paper is divided into two parts. The first deals with the situation where the complaining party was a stranger to the condemnation for highway purposes; and the second relates to the situation where the condemnee in a proceeding to take land for highway purposes seeks damages for diminution in value of the remainder attributable to traffic noise. It is noted that the evolution of the law of liability for noise damage is largely the history of litigation against the railroads for noise damage. By the time the automobile came into common use, the general principle governing liability for noise injury had become firmly established. The rules of law laid down in the railroad cases described in this report can be summarized by stating that noise from the normal operation of a railroad that is shared in common by all abutting property owners is not constitutionally compensable. On the other hand, noise that is not shared in common by all, but is localized and involves a special damage, constitutes compensable injury. If the injury is compensable, it is compensable in a "taking" state or in a "taking or damaging" state. The rules governing liability for noise and highway traffic are very similar to those of railroads and street railways. Normal noise from the movement of traffic that is suffered in common by the general public is not constitutionally compensable. That noise which is localized to a particular piece of property may be constitutionally compensable. In instances where traffic noise is considered as an element of damage in direct condemnation cases, there is ample case law which adheres to the view that traffic noise is not a compensable item of damage where such injury is one suffered in common with other landowners. In Dennison v. State, it was held that noise injury must be compensated because it cannot be separated from other elements of consequential damage. It is concluded that there is, at the present time, no unanimity of judicial opinion or approach on the question where the rules governing general and special damage should be given application to traffic noise when considered as an element of severance damage.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:18:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1565421</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Recovery for Condemnation Blight Under Inverse Law</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1563333</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report addresses the issue of compensation to property owners for condemnation blight (i.e., the threat of imminent condemnation causing property values to be seriously depressed while the owner must still bear the burden of maintenance costs, mortgage and insurance payments and taxes). Several state court cases dealing with this issue over the last decade are discussed. No consistent precedent seems to have emerged, as some courts have denied damage claims on the basis of a narrow interpretation of the grounds of recovery, while others have granted compensation by virtue of a broader interpretation. However, because the injury of condemnation is so severe, it is suggested that the law will move in the direction of the broader interpretations of the grounds of recovery.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:18:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1563333</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Trial Aids in Highway Condemnation Cases</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1564748</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This discussion of the various objects and devices to supplement oral testimony and argument in eminent domain cases, reviews some of the problems of admissibility of evidence and suggests a course based on general rules. In the opening statement, the use of plans, drawings, maps or aerial photographs is almost mandatory for orientation of the court or jury. Jury view of the premises is the best of all trial aids. There are instances, however, when a jury view would not aid the trier of the fact. It is noted that rejected offers of exhibits are much more frequently grounded on the basic principles of competence, materiality and relevance, than on the object form of evidence. The counsel should put an exhibit in proper perspective even though it may be admitted. The use of aids in cross-examination is discussed and comments are made on the closing argument. The preparation and choice of exhibits are discussed. Several techniques are available for the addition of relevant details. These include: plastic overlays, scale models, diagrams, charts, graphs, maps, photography, renderings, and videotape.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:25:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1564748</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Procedural Aspects of Inverse Condemnation--Title on Interest Acquired by Transportation and Other Public Agencies</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1563334</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report deals with the procedural aspects of inverse condemnation.  The paper addresses:  judicial means of securing title in the public agency; judicial refusal to secure title in the public agency; the possibly questionable view that conveyance of title is not necessary in inverse condemnation; "tortfeasor in inverse" as an "inverse condemnor;" and the quality of title received as affected by cross-petition, counterclaim, or third-party complaint.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:25:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1563334</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Corridor Preservation: A Review of Strategies for Texas</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1427243</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Preserving new and existing corridors for future transportation improvements has long been a concern for state transportation agencies. States must compete with developers, other government agencies, and private owners to acquire property necessary to improve existing transportation facilities or to reserve property for future transportation facilities. Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, states are now required to consider corridors for preservation in transportation plans and to outline strategies for corridor preservation. There remain, however, several issues that hinder these efforts: (1) The existing environmental and project development regulatory framework delays the advance acquisition of right-of-way; (2) Recent court rulings have found several state programs to be unconstitutional on the basis of taking without compensation; and (3) Inadequate funding for the advance acquisition of right-of-way when land use control and negotiation techniques fail results in the continued loss of key parcels of property. In order to address corridor preservation, many states have implemented policies and adopted supporting legislation that provide the state transportation agency with tools necessary to assist in the long-term preservation of corridors. Procedures and legislation that provide for informal or formal agreements between states and local governments for the use of local police powers in regulating land use in specific corridors, maps of reservation delineating the future right-of-way, and dedicated funding have been used successfully by states to preserve future right-of-way.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:09:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1427243</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Liability of Design-Builders for Design, Construction, and Acquisition Claims</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1396475</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Design–build is generally seen as providing a means to accelerate a project by providing a single point of responsibility for design, construction, and related claims. A design–build contracting team typically handles or prevents constructions claims based on defective design that arise during and after construction has been completed. Design–build procedures can also impact the acquisition of right-of-way needed for a project. Research is needed on whether liability for design, construction, or acquisition damages is always transferred to the design–builder. Transfer of liability depends on relevant statutes and case law and is also affected by the level of design performed by the agency prior to award of a design–build contract, the terms and conditions of the contract, and the actions of the parties during the course of design and construction.This digest:  1) discusses case law relevant to design liability, particularly in design–build contracts, including the extent to which a high level of pre-contract design and a high level of discretion regarding design decisions or project acceptance may affect an agency’s ability to transfer design liability; 2) provides examples of contract language relevant to design liability; 3) provides information about state laws relevant to liability and indemnity for design–build projects, including laws regarding design immunity and statutes of limitation and repose; and 4) addresses the extent to which design–build procedures and deadlines, including design changes, impact the acquisition of right-of-way and condemnation proceedings. Information on the underlying legal rules affecting transfer of liability will be a useful tool for transportation agencies that are planning design–build procurements, drafting procurement and contract documents, administering contracts, and litigating tort, construction, and acquisition claims.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:29:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1396475</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Cost of Right-of-Way Acquisition: Recognizing the Impact of Condemnation via a Switching Regression Model</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1300571</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The costs of acquiring parcels by condemnation are usually significantly higher than those of property acquired by negotiation, suggesting that right-of-way (R/W) acquisition costs may best be described by two different regression equations. This paper develops a switching regression model of acquisition cost to simultaneously predict the probability of whether a parcel will go to condemnation rather than be acquired through negotiation and the corresponding acquisition costs under these two regimes. The error terms of the selection equation and the two cost equations follow a trivariate normal distribution to reflect codependence on unobserved factors (such as a land owner’s tenacity or a site’s view value). When applied to the properties acquired across the state of Texas for transportation projects between 2008 and 2011, the results of this switching regression model suggest that R/W appraisers and staff should pay special attention to parcels in commercial use involving a partial taking with a relatively small remainder and located in more urbanized areas. Comparison of cost estimates between the two regimes (condemnation versus negotiation) suggests that condemned parcels will have, on average, 78% higher acquisition costs and 51% greater price variation across the 1,710 acquired properties. These results suggest that it is much more costly to acquire a property and more difficult to accurately predict its costs if it cannot be acquired through negotiation. The application of model estimates to an example corridor highlights the value of simulation to capture all modeling uncertainties.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:07:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1300571</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Optimizing Transparency and Disclosure to Reduce Right-of-Way Acquisition Duration for Construction Projects in Mississippi</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1256768</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Any delays in the right-of-way (ROW) acquisition process can lead to major delays in the construction phase. This paper examines the factors that have contributed to higher numbers of condemnation cases and, by extension, to delays in the ROW acquisition process in Mississippi. Addressing some of the delay factors will allow targeted improvements to reduce condemnation cases and speed the acquisition process. By using a survey of practitioners and previous analyses, condemnation cases, transparency, and Mississippi’s lack of price disclosure in the public record were identified as significant factors that contributed to delays in the ROW acquisition process. The identified factors that contributed to acquisition delays at the Mississippi Department of Transportation and the survey results were used to develop a new recommended process, changing the state law to reduce the number of condemnations, increase the number of parcels acquired through negotiation, and enhance the overall efficiency of the ROW acquisition process. The recommended new process was tested and validated on an active project that contained 32 parcels in which 10 (31%) parcels were considered for condemnation. Using this new process, only one parcel (3%) was condemned and the other nine parcels (28%) were prevented from condemnation. This new process significantly reduced the duration of ROW acquisition by reducing potential condemnation cases and enhanced the negotiation and the overall acquisition process. The new process is simple and readily applicable for the acquisition policies and procedures of any transportation agency.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:10:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1256768</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Studies of Highway Impact in Indiana: Progress Report No. 3, A Study of Partial Takings for a Portion of Interstate 65</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1219333</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The acquisition of right-of-way for highway improvements creates extremely difficult public relations problems. Because the acquisition of land is not a sale consummated between a willing buyer and a willing seller, bitterness caused by misunderstandings is likely to occur, and has occurred in the past. Public relations can be improved by increased knowledge. The purpose of this portion of the study is to permit the determination of equitable compensation for affected property owners. This report presents an analysis of the right-of-way costs including damages for that portion of Interstate 65 between Lebanon and Indianapolis. The large number of condemnations are noted and the tremendous differences between appraisals made by State and Court appraisers are evaluated and discussed. Although no solutions are offered to this problem, the seriousness of the difficulties is emphasized and further study is planned.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:08:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1219333</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Cost of Right-of-Way Acquisition: Recognizing the Impact of Condemnation via a Switching Regression Model</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1129473</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The costs of acquiring parcels by condemnation are usually significantly higher than those for property acquired by negotiation, suggesting that the Right-of-Way (R/W) acquisition costs may best be described by two different regression equations. This paper develops a switching regression model of acquisition cost to simultaneously predict the probability of whether a parcel will go to condemnation rather than be acquired via negotiation and the corresponding acquisition costs under these two regimes. The error terms of the selection equation and the two cost equations follow a trivariate normal distribution to reflect co-dependence on unobserved factors (such as a land owner's tenacity or a site's view value).   When applied to the properties acquired across the state of Texas for transportation projects between 2008 and 2011, results of this switching regression model suggest that R/W appraisers and staff should pay special attention to parcels in commercial use involving a partial taking with a relatively small remainder and located in more urbanized areas. Comparison of cost estimates between the two regimes (condemnation vs. negotiation) suggests that condemned parcels will have, on average, 78% higher acquisition costs across the 1,710 acquired properties and 51% greater price variation. These results suggest that it is much more costly to acquire a property and more difficult to accurately predict its costs if it cannot be acquired via negotiation. The application of model estimates to an example corridor highlights the value of simulation to capture all modeling uncertainties.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 09:31:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1129473</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Recent Developments in Condemnation Law: Public Use, Private Property</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1136588</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court declined to rule out future challenges to takings under the Public Use Clause if a condemner’s asserted public use or purpose was a pretext to hide private benefit.  This article discusses several recent cases which concerned the power of condemners to take property, including challenges under the Public Use Clause.  One of these cases involved a property owner whose land was being taken under the Pennsylvania Private Road Act in order to be turned over to a landlocked neighbor for the building of a private road.   The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the Road Act may violate the public use clause since public benefits must be primary and paramount in order for a taking to be constitutional.  Other cases highlighted in the article addressed findings of blight, appraisal practices, and whether a taking for a natural gas pipeline by a private company violated the public use clause.  The cases illustrate the need for more clarification on the Kelo case’s implications for condemnation law.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:15:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1136588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>