<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>Quantifying the Impact that New Capital Projects Will Have on Roadway Snow and Ice Control Operations</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1570683</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In recent years, many states have experienced heavy burdens on their snow and ice control budgets. Increases in winter/spring precipitation results in increased costs to state departments of transportation (DOTs) for winter roadway maintenance materials (salt, sand, chemicals, etc.), plow operator time, equipment maintenance and replacement budgets, and fuel use. As state DOTs adjust to climate conditions that include not only more precipitation, but more severe and unpredictable weather events, it will become increasingly important to integrate the cost of roadway snow and ice control (RSIC) operations into their capital-project planning processes. The overall goal of this project was to support state DOTs’ operations & maintenance efforts by developing an automated method for quantifying the expected impact that new capital projects will have on RSIC operations. The effects of a new suburban roadway were found to be the most significant, requiring 266 vehicle-minutes of travel along with almost 40 minutes of additional service time or one additional fleet truck for each mile of new roadway. The results and findings of this research have implications for short-term funding allocations for RSIC operations staff and for long-term consideration of RSIC in the highway planning and design processes. The findings of this project provide defensible data for operations staff to advocate for increases in funding to offset the increased RSIC burden when a project is completed. The calculation tool created incorporates all of the results above into a MS Excel decision support platform, providing quick estimates of the monetary impact of a variety of major highway project types.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2018 15:13:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1570683</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Elements and Ramifications of Varying Financing Scenarios on the Overall Cost of Transportation Capital Programs</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1359747</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This project explores the economic forces that are in play in transportation capital programs. The goal is to inform decision makers so that they can better determine the most efficient means of increasing funding for transportation capital programs without unduly affecting costs. Two factors have been widely discussed in the transportation sector over the last year. First, as we delay maintenance due to limited resources, the unit cost of fixing our infrastructure increases rapidly. That is, delayed maintenance leads to more costly repairs. Second, based on asset management principles, the costs to maintain our infrastructure at the desired level now exceeds our revenue sources for transportation. This project aims to develop a model to show the optimal rate of increase in transportation expenditures over time to most efficiently and cost effectively meet the infrastructure needs. The underlying assumption is that a tripling of the capital program in one year will not result in a tripling of the projects delivered and will, in fact, negatively affect project cost.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2015 01:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1359747</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Federal Transit Administration's Perspective on the Need for and Benefits of Risk Assessment on Major Capital Projects</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1132220</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper describes how the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has applied risk assessment primarily to the major capital fixed guideway transit projects called New Starts to date. New Starts projects range in capital cost from $100 million to nearly ten billion. While the New Starts program constitutes less than 20 percent of FTA’s authorized funding, they are nevertheless FTA’s most visible and most highly scrutinized program. Congress has incrementally increased funding for New Starts. Between 1999 and 2006, federal funding grew by forty percent. At the same time that funding for transit increased, criticism of the management of major transportation projects grew. A number of research projects on transit and other transportation showed that actual capital costs exceeded initial cost estimates by an average of 20 to 30 percent. Some of these studies showed even greater overages.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:38:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1132220</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Private Finance Initiative (PFI) for road projects in UK: current practice with a case study</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1111832</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The long-term sustainable provision of new and high quality maintained road stock is vitally important, especially in times of economic constraint such as Europe is currently experiencing. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is one method of financing such large-scale, capital intensive projects. An important aspect of this form of financing projects is that the risks are borne not only by the sponsors but are shared by different types of investors, such as equity holders, debt providers, and quasi-equity investors. Consequently, a comprehensive and heuristic risk management process is essential for the success of the project. The proposition made within this paper is that the PFI mechanism provides a Value-for-Money and effective mechanism to achieve this. The structure of this PFI finance and investment on a particular road project therefore enables all project stakeholders to take a long-term perspective. This long-term perspective is reflected in the mechanism of a case study of UK - Class A trunk roads which are examined in detail. This paper presents a novel solution to a modern dilemma.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:56:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1111832</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Collaborative Airport Capital Planning Handbook</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1105807</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report provides guidance to those in the airport community who have responsibility for, and stake in, developing, financing, managing, and overseeing an airport capital plan and the individual projects included in it.  The handbook provides clear guidance on who should perform each task in the collaborative planning process.  It also defines and describes the different ways in which we communicate to ensure effective exchanges between internal and external stakeholders.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:49:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1105807</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study, Phase II</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1105719</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Commonwealth of Virginia’s Statewide Multimodal Freight Study is the product of more than three years of study and tool development. The Study finds that Virginia’s overall statewide transportation planning process is and has been effective to assess appropriate transportation improvement needs and recommendations for the Commonwealth to mitigate the growth of congestion. However, what the Commonwealth’s existing statewide transportation planning process has not had is the ability to connect the growth trends of trade and business to transportation demand that reflects a more comprehensive consideration than simply projecting future demand from historical traffic counts. It has also lacked the ability to assign impact or value to the freight transportation industry regarding growing congestion, or planned transportation improvements. Moreover, significant and specific freight-transportation-generating business decisions have been and will be made that will drive the rapid growth of transportation demand – decisions made both inside of the Commonwealth, and outside. The findings and recommendations contained in this Summary Report stand as a starting point for Virginia’s Transportation Long Range Plan to address these issues. This report consists of three parts: Part I: "About This Report" provides a brief description of the Study’s overall purpose and structure. Part II: "Statewide Freight Study" identifies, from all modes, the projects that are most important to freight movement, including both programmed near-term projects and potential long-term projects. Potential policies, actions, and initiatives that supplement capital projects also are included. Part III: "Multimodal Freight Corridor and Subregion Profiles" provides concise descriptions of the geography, economic structure, commodity flows, transportation facilities, and potential capital projects associated with each of the 11 multimodal freight corridors and 4 subregions in Virginia. While an integral part of the overall Study, these profiles also can be read as stand-alone documents.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:19:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1105719</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation and Selection of Airport Capital Project Delivery Methods</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/905134</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report documents the benefits and disadvantages of various project delivery methods for capital airport projects and provides guidelines for selecting an appropriate delivery method for a specific project. Project delivery methods considered are Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Construction Manager-at-Risk (CMR), and Design-Build (DB). A two-tiered project delivery selection framework is developed that can help the owners to evaluate pros and cons of each delivery method and select the most appropriate for their project. Tier 1 is a qualitative approach that allows the user to document advantages and disadvantages of each competing delivery method. The user can then review the results of this analysis and select the best delivery method. If at the conclusion of this analysis, a clear option does not emerge, the user then moves on to Tier 2. Tier 2 is a weighted matrix approach that allows the user to quantify the effectiveness of competing delivery methods and select the approach based on quantitative analysis. The framework developed requires the decision-makers to follow a logical and consistent procedure for considering all the relevant factors in project delivery selection. The process produces a Project Delivery Decision Report that documents the decision-making process and details relevant decision factors to fine-tune future project delivery decisions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:49:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/905134</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Guidebook for Selecting Airport Capital Project Delivery Methods</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/902665</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This guidebook describes various project delivery methods for major airport capital projects.  The guidebook also evaluates the impacts, advantages, and disadvantages of these various project delivery methods.  The project delivery methods discussed include design-bid-build (DBB), construction manager at risk (CMR), and design-build (DB).  The guidebook offers a two-tiered project delivery selection framework that may be used by owners of airport projects to evaluate the pros and cons of each delivery method and select the most appropriate method for their project.  Tier 1 is an analytical delivery decision approach that is designed to help the user understand the attributes of each project delivery method and whether the delivery method is appropriate for their specific circumstance.  Tier 2 uses a weighted-matrix delivery decision approach that allows users to prioritize their objectives and, based on the prioritized objectives, select the delivery method that is best suited for their project.  The report will be helpful to airports with determining the most appropriate project delivery methods (e.g., DBB, DB, or CMR) for various types of airport capital projects.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:15:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/902665</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/889328</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This research documents the benefits and disadvantages of various project delivery methods for capital transit projects and provides guidelines for selecting the most appropriate delivery method for a specific project. Project delivery methods considered are Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Construction Manager at Risk (CMR), Design-Build (DB), and Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM). The results of several extensive interviews with directors of transit projects throughout the United States are reported. A three-tiered project delivery selection framework is developed that can help the owners of transit projects to evaluate pros and cons of each delivery method and select the most appropriate for their project. Tier 1 is a qualitative approach that allows the user to document advantages and disadvantages of each competing delivery method. The user can then review the results of this analysis and select the best delivery method. If at the conclusion of this analysis, still a clear option does not emerge, the user can move to Tier 2. Tier 2 is a weighted matrix approach that allows the user to quantify the effectiveness of competing delivery methods and select the approach that receives the highest score. The third Tier uses principles of risk analysis to evaluate delivery methods. Regardless of how many tiers an agency uses to arrive at a project delivery method selection decision, the framework forces the decision-makers to document their logic as they proceed through the process. This aspect will prove especially helpful as agencies can use these documented decisions in future projects.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 12:01:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/889328</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/889006</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This guidebook describes various project delivery methods for major transit capital projects.  The guidebook also includes an evaluation of the impacts, advantages, and disadvantages of including operations and maintenance as a component of a contract for a project delivery method.  The project delivery methods discussed are design-bid-build (DBB), construction manager at risk (CMR), design-build (DB), and design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM).  The guidebook offers a three-tiered project delivery selection framework that may be used by owners of transit projects to evaluate the pros and cons of each delivery method and select the most appropriate method for their project.  Tier 1 is a qualitative approach that allows the user to document the advantages and disadvantages of each competing delivery method.  The user can then review the results of this analysis and select the best delivery method.  If, at the conclusion of this analysis, a clear option does not emerge, the user then moves on to Tier 2.  Tier 2 is a weighted-matrix approach that allows the user to quantify the effectiveness of competing delivery methods and select the approach that receives the highest score.  The third tier uses principles of risk analysis to evaluate delivery methods.  The selection framework may also be useful as a means to document the decision in the form of a Project Delivery Decision Report.  The guidebook will be helpful to transit general managers, policy-makers, procurement officers, planners, and consultants in evaluating and selecting the appropriate project delivery method for major transit capital projects.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 14:43:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/889006</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Decision Support System for Selection of Project Delivery Method in Transit</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/881496</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A decision support system was developed to help transit agencies evaluate and choose the most appropriate project delivery method for their capital projects. The system considers the traditional design–bid–build, construction manager-at-risk, design–build, and design–build–operate–maintain delivery methods. A set of 24 pertinent issues that can affect the choice of project delivery method are identified and described. The described decision support system consists of two distinct tiers. The first tier is a qualitative assessment in which the decision maker evaluates the effectiveness of each delivery method for dealing with the relevant pertinent issues. This tier will help agencies determine if there is a dominant or obvious choice of project delivery method. If at the end of this stage a clear choice is not evident, the user will move to the second tier, where a weighted matrix is used to score competing alternatives. The system will also provide a structure for documenting the project delivery decision in the form of a project delivery decision report. A validation process for the system is described, and a brief example is provided to show the application of the decision support system.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:56:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/881496</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Cost Overrun and Cause in Korean Social Overhead Capital Projects: Roads, Rails, Airports, and Ports</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/863071</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Changes during the life cycle of a project promote cost overruns due to cost increases, time schedule delays, and benefit shortfalls. Specifically, cost overruns are usually due to inefficient budget usage by the national government for social overhead capital (SOC) investments. This paper aims to establish the cost overrun relating to transport policy in an institutional context, discuss the general causes and identify possibilities for their reduction in Korean SOC project preparation and decision making. The establishment of cost overrun probability distributions for a number of reference classes requires access to credible data for a sufficient number of projects within the same reference classes for statistically meaningful conclusions to be drawn. Cost data were available for a total of 161 completed projects. The results indicated that 95 and 100% of road and rail projects, respectively, had a maximum cost overrun of 50%. The causes of cost overruns can be grouped into several major categories: changes in the scope, delays during construction, unreasonable estimation and adjustment of project costs, and no practical use of the earned value management system.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:44:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/863071</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Report to Congress on the Costs, Benefits, and Efficiencies of Public-Private Partnerships for Fixed Guideway Capital Projects</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/849438</link>
      <description><![CDATA[As the growth in traditional transportation revenue sources, such as gasoline taxes, continues to decline and operating deficits increase, transportation agencies are increasingly looking for new sources of revenue to leverage funding and to improve project feasibility and cost-effectiveness. One of the most successful methods employed by other infrastructure sectors to improve project feasibility and cost-effectiveness and generate revenues is the use of public-private partnerships (PPPs). In addition to cutting costs and raising new revenue, PPPs can significantly reduce the time it takes to complete a capital project, can help the public sector allocate risks to the private sector that the private sector is better able to manage and can improve the quality of the public’s infrastructure. The success other sectors have had with PPPs has led transportation agencies, including a number of transit agencies, to pursue opportunities for applying various types of PPPs to deliver major capital projects. There is ample evidence across the United States that the private sector is interested in increasing its participation in transportation infrastructure projects, including a number of recent transit capital projects structured as PPPs. This report sheds light on the growing use of PPPs for transit capital projects – a trend which has been driven more by local transit agencies than Federal government encouragement or promotion – to provide significant new sources of funding for transit, help address the country’s urban congestion crisis and enhance mobility in many of the country’s metropolitan areas. This report responds to a requirement contained in 49 U.S.C. 5309(c)(6), which was enacted on August 10, 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and is intended to identify and examine the costs, benefits, and efficiencies of applying PPP delivery approaches to transit projects. The report is intended to provide greater understanding of PPPs and their relative advantages for expediting public transit capital projects and improving service delivery.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:45:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/849438</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Project and Construction - Management Guidelines (2003 Update)</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/808963</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Guidelines were originally published in September 1990 and subsequently updated in June 1996. They summarize Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements, best practices, and research results in the management of transit capital project development. This update incorporates the changes in regulations and policies and the experience gained as of 2003.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 12:02:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/808963</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Roadway Project Prioritization for Ada County Highway District's Five-Year Work Program</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/804493</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper outlines the Ada County Highway District’s (ACHD's) project prioritization process for its annual Five-Year Work Program.  ACHD is a unique transportation agency with full jurisdiction over all city and county roadways within Ada County, Idaho. With this role, ACHD is tasked with planning, constructing and managing the  transportation needs of one medium-sized community (Boise, pop. 200,000), five small communities (Meridian, pop. 48,000; Garden City, pop. 12,000; Eagle, pop. 16,000; Kuna, pop. 10,000; and Star, pop. 3,000) and the unincorporated areas of Ada County (pop. 58,000). Total population served by ACHD is 347,000.  This unique responsibility requires daily coordination with the six city governments, county government, the development community, Metropolitan Planning Organization, three city urban renewal development corporations and regional public transportation authority. It also requires that each entity’s elected officials, their staff, citizens and private interests easily understand how ACHD prioritizes capital projects.  The Boise metropolitan area ranked as one of the fastest growing urbanized areas from 1990 to 2000 according to the U.S. Census and is the largest metropolitan area in Idaho. That growth created increased strain on ACHD’s highway system and its limited revenue sources. These factors helped ACHD develop a prioritization method that takes into account numerous factors that impact how and why ACHD programs a specific project for funding.  Prior to 2002, ACHD’s system of prioritizing Major Roadway Projects was primarily a “technical” system, using data such as traffic volumes, accident rates, and pavement condition, with some consideration given to growth and other community programming factors. Programming these projects into a Five-Year Work Program was initially based on these technical rankings but not strictly adhered to since other factors impacted final project selection.  In 2002, ACHD extended these technical factors by introducing prioritization categories that quantified the community planning and political factors that impact roadway projects and reflected how and why projects were selected and programmed. These “programming” factors include categories such as geographic equity, public and outside agency support, leveraging of non-ACHD funds and prior ACHD commitments.  This method was presented to the six cities, the county and other civic and professional groups. It was well received. The input provided valuable information that ACHD has used to evaluate how prioritization processes reflect the changing goals and values of the citizens of Ada County. Currently, ACHD is expanding this process into other types of capital programs including community projects, intersections and roadway drainage projects. In addition, ACHD has been contacted by other agencies in the region regarding implementation of a similar prioritization process for their capital projects.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:38:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/804493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>