<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>How transit agencies implement best practice strategies in complementary ADA paratransit eligibility</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1604643</link>
      <description><![CDATA[To encourage greater fixed route transit use for people with disabilities, transit agencies are implementing morrigorous paratransit eligibility determination practices. Previous studies identified best practice strategies for eligibility determination, but did not fully document the implementation of these strategies, nor the factors contributing to successes or challenges. This study interviewed 16 transit agencies across the United States to investigate the use of ADA complementary paratransit eligibility best practices in order to (a) determine the extent to which transit agencies are adopting suggested best practices as part of determining paratransit eligibility, (b) describe how agencies apply these strategies in daily operations, and (c) explore factors that contribute to implementation successes and challenges. Findings indicate that many transit agencies have incorporated multiple best practice eligibility strategies as part of department-wide changes in paratransit operations and have overcome implementation challenges by recognizing departmental limitations and collaborating with other departments and organizations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2019 11:03:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1604643</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Impact of Multiple Highway Funding Categories and Project Eligibility Restrictions on Pavement Performance</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1567541</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) programming, most budget allocation models in literature often assume one principal budget that can be used for funding all the different projects undertaken by the decision-making entity. For most agencies, this is rarely the case. This study explores the impact of formulating the M&R budget allocation problem with multiple funding categories (or budgets) having stringent project eligibility constraints. For state highway agencies (SHAs), there are often several federal, state, and local funding sources for highway projects. There are also agency norms and regulations that restrain the eligible projects under each funding category. This study presents an integer–linear programming model that accounts for funding restrictions in M&R budgets to assess changes in network performance and M&R decisions for pavement assets. The model is implemented in a numerical case study representing a subset network consisting of 500 pavement sections. Findings from this study suggest that the projected performance of the M&R program is overestimated when there is the assumption of one “central” budget with no project eligibility constraints. This may lead to an increase in unplanned expenditures toward reactive M&R projects to meet performance targets. Furthermore, the findings also suggest that increasingly restrictive budgets lead to a lower network performance for the same aggregate budget. The sensitivity analyses conducted confirm that the results obtained are robust against variations in key input variables used in the model. These findings contribute to ongoing efforts toward incorporating pragmatic constraints in optimization models to enhance their utility for effective decision making.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:11:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1567541</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Administration of ADA Paratransit Eligibility Appeal Programs</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1508551</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Americans with Disabilities (ADA) paratransit eligibility appeal programs allow appellants the opportunity to present new information not provided or available during the initial eligibility decision that may warrant a change in eligibility determination. At the same time, any appeal program must consistently apply the decision-making standards established by the agency’s ADA paratransit certification program. As more agencies employ some form of conditional eligibility, eligibility appeal processes are emerging as a significant area of vulnerability. If the eligibility appeal process is not administered properly, transit agencies run the risk of violating applicants’ civil rights under the ADA or Title VI requirements. This synthesis study identifies ADA eligibility appeal processes and documents current practices of transit systems.  A literature review and detailed survey responses of 37 out of 45 transit agencies are provided (for an 82% response rate). An analysis on the state of the practice, emphasizing lessons learned, challenges, and gaps in information also is provided. Five case examples with varying approaches to eligibility appeals were also developed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:15:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1508551</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Voluntary Airport Low Emission Program Technical Report Version 7</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1398237</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The contents of this report are presented in the following chapters: (1) Introduction - The Voluntary Airport Low Emission Program (VALE) is described in this chapter, including VALE program benefits, airport eligibility, agency and industry participants, applicable environmental regulations, and associated Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs; (2)  Application Procedures; (3) Fuel Eligibility and Characteristics; (4) General Vehicle Eligibility; (5) Program Low-Emission Standards for New Vehicles; (6) Infrastructure Eligibility and Fuel Facility Guidelines; (7) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Project Eligibility; (8) Airport Program Responsibilities; and (9) Assessment Methodology,]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2016 16:37:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1398237</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Synthesis of Information Related to Transit Problems. Topic SB-25. Practices for Establishing ADA Paratransit Assessment Facilities</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1335559</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations require establishment of a process for determining eligibility for complementary paratransit service provided in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The ADA paratransit eligibility certification process is used to accurately identify who is eligible to use ADA paratransit services so that appropriate service is provided to the intended beneficiaries and costs are properly managed.   To make eligibility decisions, transit agencies often use in-person interviews and, in some cases, functional assessments of an individual's ability to use fixed route transit for some or all of their trips. Little is known about the actual or optimal physical facilities used to perform these assessments. A synthesis study is needed to identify and document practices related to the characteristics, benefits, and costs of establishing ADA paratransit assessment facilities. The results of this synthesis will provide transit agencies with information on current practices to develop and structure ADA paratransit assessment facilities.   The Synthesis will document, but not be limited to the following:  * Decision-making process in establishing facilities, including community involvement/outreach used process;  * Implementation process used to establish facilities;  * Facility purpose and use; types of assessments performed, etc.;  * Physical structure of centers including: size and capacity and location (single or multiple sites);  * Equipment, indoor versus outdoor courses and other strategies to document an applicant's ability to use fixed route transit; environmental considerations, etc.;  * Functional activity flow for applicants from entrance to exit;  * Initial construction, start-up, equipment, ad on-going annual operating costs;  * If other related activities are co-located, whether facilities are owned and managed by the local transit agency or contracted;  * Whether staff is in-house or contracted and full-time or part-time and staff qualifications.   This synthesis will explore these issues and document successful practice. A literature review, survey of selected transit agencies and/or other stakeholders, and detailed case examples/profiles will be accomplished to report on the state-of-practice, including lessons learned, challenges, and gaps in information.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:00:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1335559</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>National Register of Historic Places Eligibility</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1266686</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The first objective of NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 33 was to identify how practitioners actually evaluate the National Register eligibility of properties, in the context of transportation projects. A nationwide survey was used to identify the current state of the practice. The second objective was to identify and/or develop best practices for evaluating National Register eligibility, using the results of this survey. Before discussing the survey, this report reviews the role of the National Register evaluation process in the context of transportation project delivery. It also reviews current national guidance on the eligibility evaluation process. As evident from the survey results, many practitioners seem to have forgotten, do not understand, or have ignored how eligibility evaluations are supposed to be performed, following national guidance developed by the National Park Service, the official home of the National Register of Historic Places.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 20:15:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1266686</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>So Many Choices, So Many Ways to Choose: How Five State Departments of Transportation Select Safe Routes to School Programs for Funding</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1147957</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs support children safely walking and biking to and from school. Each state Department of Transportation (DOT) awards federal grant money to proposal applications made by local SRTS programs. Because demand for federal SRTS funding far exceeds most states’ budgets for their program, state DOTs must carefully select the SRTS proposals that receive an award. By definition, most local program proposals that meet the federal guidelines to receive SRTS grant money will include elements that contribute to pedestrian safety. As a result, state DOTs that wish to leverage their SRTS funds are faced with the difficult task of choosing those proposals with the greatest potential to successfully increase the safety and number of children walking or biking to school. This report compares how five state DOTs – Florida, Mississippi, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin – select the most promising SRTS proposals for funding. It reviews how the five states approach the selection process by considering grant types, SRTS plans, eligibility requirements, program distribution policies, proposal review processes, and established selection criteria. The selection processes and criteria used are reviewed to highlight examples of best practices that consider (1) the four common barriers to walking and biking to school (distance, income, parent values and parent concerns), (2) the “five E’s” commonly used to classify SRTS program elements (engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation), and (3) the five conceptualized stages of an SRTS program (existing conditions, planning, proposal, implementation, and assessment of outcomes). The results of this review are insights into how the five state DOTs define an effective SRTS program and how they prioritize awards for the many good SRTS program proposals they receive. Examples of effective selection practices are identified as a basis for making specific recommendations on what constitutes a promising proposal selection process that awards programs with the highest potential to increase the safety and number of children walking or biking to school. An appendix contains documentation on the original SRTS proposal selection protocols used by the five contributing state DOTs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:37:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1147957</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Highway Emergency Relief: Strengthened Oversight of Project Eligibility Decisions Needed</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1124353</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), administers the Emergency Relief Program to provide funds to states to repair roads damaged by natural disasters and catastrophic failures. In 2007, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)  reported that in recent years states’ annual demand for emergency relief funds often exceeded the program’s $100 million annual authorization from the Highway Trust Fund and required supplemental appropriations from general revenues to address a backlog of funding requests from states. GAO recommended that FHWA tighten eligibility standards and coordinate with states to withdraw unneeded emergency relief funds, among other actions. For this report, GAO reviewed (1) Emergency Relief Program funding trends since 2007, (2) key program changes made in response to GAO’s 2007 report, and (3) the extent to which selected emergency relief projects were approved in compliance with program eligibility requirements. From fiscal years 2007 through 2010, the Emergency Relief Program received about $2.3 billion, of which $1.9 billion came from three supplemental appropriations compared with about $400 million authorized from the Highway Trust Fund. FHWA allocated this funding to 42 states and 3 territories to reduce the backlog of funding requests, with $485 million in unfunded requests remaining as of June 2011. This backlog list did not include funding requests for August 2011 damages from Hurricane Irene. Because the program lacks time frames to limit states from requesting funds years after events occur, the June 2011 backlog list includes about $90 million for events that occurred prior to fiscal year 1994. Without time limits for emergency relief funding requests, FHWA’s ability to anticipate and manage future program costs is hindered. In response to GAO’s 2007 report, FHWA withdrew about $367 million of unobligated emergency relief funds from states and redistributed most of this funding for other emergency relief needs. However, additional funding remains unused, including (1) at least $63 million allocated to states before fiscal year 2007 that has yet to be obligated to projects and (2) $341 million obligated between fiscal years 2001 and 2006 that remains unexpended. Due to a lack of time frames for states to close-out completed projects, FHWA lacks project status information to determine whether unexpended funding is no longer needed and could be deobligated. FHWA has not addressed GAO’s 2007 recommendation to revise its regulations to limit the use of emergency relief to fully fund projects that have grown in scope and cost as a result of environmental or community concerns. The Emergency Relief Program faces the continued risk of escalating costs due to projects that have grown in scope beyond the program’s goal of restoring damaged facilities to predisaster conditions. GAO’s review of 83 emergency relief project files in three FHWA state offices found many instances of missing or incomplete documentation—as such, GAO was unable to determine the basis by which FHWA made many eligibility determinations. For example, about half of the project files did not include required repair cost estimates, and 39 of 58 (67 percent) emergency repair projects approved for 100 percent federal funding did not contain documentation of completion within 180 days—a requirement for states to receive 100 percent federal funding. FHWA lacks clear requirements for how states submit and FHWA approves key project documentation, which has resulted in FHWA state offices applying eligibility guidelines differently. Establishing standardized procedures for reviewing emergency relief documentation and making eligibility decisions would provide greater assurance that projects are in fact eligible and that FHWA makes eligibility determinations consistently and transparently. GAO makes several recommendations including that FHWA establish (1) time frames to limit states’ requests for emergency relief funds and to close completed projects and (2) standardized procedures for reviewing emergency relief documentation and making eligibility decisions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:47:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1124353</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Emergency Relief Program: Federal-Aid Highway Assistance for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Bridge</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1122447</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The major highways and bridges damaged during Hurricane Irene in 2011and the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis of August 1, 2007 are part of the federal-aid highway system and were therefore eligible for assistance under the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Emergency Relief Program (ER). Following a natural disaster or catastrophic failure (such as the I-35W bridge), ER funds are made available for both emergency repairs and restoration of federal-aid highway facilities to pre-disaster conditions. The ER program is administered through the state departments of transportation in close coordination with FHWA’s division offices (there is one in each state). Although ER is a federal program, the decision to seek ER funding is made by the state, not by the federal government. Most observers see the close and ongoing relationship between the FHWA’s staff at the state level and their state counterparts as facilitating a quick coordinated response to disasters. The program is funded by an annual $100 million authorization from the highway trust fund and general fund appropriations that are provided by Congress on a such sums as necessary basis. A number of issues have arisen in recent years: (1) The scope of eligible activities funded by ER has grown via legislative or FHWA waivers of eligibility criteria or changes in definitions that have expanded the scope of ER projects, sometimes beyond repairing or restoring highways to pre-disaster condition; (2) The $100 million annual authorization has been exceeded nearly every fiscal year, requiring appropriations that can lead to delay in funding permanent repairs; and (3) Congress has directed that in some cases ER fully fund projects, without the normal 10% or 20% state matching share, putting financial pressure on the federal side of disaster highway assistance. State requests for ER funding are at times backlogged. In a deficit-reduction environment, it is questionable whether the ER program can continue to loosen eligibility restrictions and forgo the state match without increasing the backlog. This report begins with a brief discussion of the legislative origins of federal assistance and describes the ER program in its current form. The report then discusses eligibility issues and program operation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:33:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1122447</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Systematic Tool for Selection of Division Managed, Federally Funded Pavement Preservation Projects</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1091658</link>
      <description><![CDATA[North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is moving responsibility for a portion of its’ Federal aid program for Pavement Preservation to its field Divisions. In order to do so, it is necessary that a systematic process be used by the Divisions to select and rank projects being considered for this funding.  This paper outlines such a systematic process which includes three main parts: eligibility,preservation and project impact, and technical items. Eligibility must be verified before any further consideration is given. Preservation and project impact assigns points to a project for the suitability of the pavement conditions for preservation, for traffic volume, for project length, and for other economic or societal benefits. Up to 50 points can be assigned based on the preservation and impact items.  Up to 50 additional points can be assigned based on technical items that relate directly to pavement distresses and treatments. Separate items are provided for jointed plain concrete pavement and for flexible pavements. The technical points are added to the preservation and impact items for an overall project score. An example is provided for one division to demonstrate the use of the preservation project selection tool.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:04:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1091658</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1089278</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report will be of interest to public transit agencies wishing to explore whether and how to commingle Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) paratransit and non-ADA paratransit riders.  The core features of the Resource Guide are two decision-making processes:  (1) planning and (2) operations.  The Resource Guide presents important lessons learned from transit agencies that have made decisions both to commingle and not to commingle their ADA paratransit and non-ADA paratransit riders.  Non-ADA paratransit riders include non-sponsored older adults, non-sponsored persons with disabilities, other agency funded persons, the general public, persons receiving Medicaid, Title III persons, non-sponsored low income persons, and persons in the Head Start program.  Appendix B contains case study summaries.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:22:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1089278</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Impacts of More Rigorous ADA Paratransit Eligibility Assessments on Riders with Disabilities</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/897728</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Due to the ever-increasing demand for complementary Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit trips, transit agencies have instituted a number of actions related to reducing the costs of this type of service, including steps to limit the demand through stricter and more complex ADA paratransit eligibility processes. The objective of this research was to document the changes the transit systems made to their ADA paratransit eligibility procedures and to determine the impacts these changes have had on riders with disabilities. The research report provides a brief history and overview of the ADA complementary paratransit regulations and services; summarizes increased demand and related agency ADA paratransit expenditures; documents recent trends and changes in the ADA complementary paratransit eligibility processes; and provides a summary of the best practices related to ADA paratransit eligibility procedures.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:27:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/897728</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Paratransit Eligibility Screening Has Become a Critical Tool in Managing ADA Paratransit Demand</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/890492</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the number of paratransit trips provided in the U.S. has more than doubled, dramatically expanding the mobility options for people with disabilities who are unable to ride fixed-route transit. Concomitant with this ridership increase has been an even greater increase in paratransit operating costs. The ADA clearly states that all capacity constraints (such as late or lengthy trips and trip denials) are prohibited, and provides some guidance on how these constraints are defined. The one tool allowed under the ADA that can be used to manage paratransit demand is the establishment of accurate eligibility screening processes. Until the passage of the ADA, many paratransit services were based on the social service model that allowed individuals to ride based on age or fairly loose disability-related criteria. Since transit agencies did not want to take on the political repercussions that could occur as a result of tightening their eligibility screening processes, many focused on implementing ADA-compliant paratransit services rather than address this politically charged issue. Since ADA paratransit was expected to mirror fixed-route services to the greatest extent possible, many new possibilities were opened up for people with disabilities and ridership began to climb steadily. This occurred despite the improvements in fixed-route accessibility, which some had hoped would slow the trends of increased paratransit ridership. In order to address spiraling costs, transit agencies, particularly those in the larger cities, began to explore different means of increasing the accuracy of their eligibility screening processes, usually with the introduction of an in-person element in the assessment. This process has been escalated in recent years, and even those in smaller communities are weighing the extra initial costs of more accurate screenings with the potential savings that may be accrued from reduced ridership bases. This trend has significant ramifications for people with disabilities and for the transit agencies that serve them. This paper will address this critical issue as well as the following questions: (1) What are the ADA paratransit eligibility requirements? (2) How can the lessons learned concerning more accurate eligibility screenings be applied in a non-U.S. context where eligibility requirements are either not explicitly addressed in accessibility legislation or vary from ADA legislation? (3) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the four main eligibility screening models? (4) What are the arguments for and against in-person versus paper applications? (5) What is a 'functional assessment' and should transit agencies use this method versus interviews? (6) Should assessments be conducted in-house or contracted out? (7) How should people whose eligibility has expired be recertified? (8) What are the real cost savings that may be realized from more accurate screenings? (9) What impact would more accurate screenings have on the mobility of people with disabilities and older adults?]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:28:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/890492</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Patchwork Quilt of Compliance</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/859514</link>
      <description><![CDATA[It is unlikely that federal immigration legislation will be passed prior to the presidential election, and currently individual state laws are often in conflict. Contractors face a very messy compliance scenario due to these conflicts. In order to avoid hiring undocumented workers, the Employment Eligibility Verification System (E-Verify) is maintained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Some states, like Arizona, require it, others, like Illinois, effectively ban it, saying the E-Verify database is full of errors and the system is flawed. The author examines the experiences of different construction companies in regard to immigration issues.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 07:41:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/859514</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Web-based Paratransit Eligibility</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/810906</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper describes how a web-based eligibility process produces a less expensive cost per evaluation, increases the amount of professional advocacy and has received a much better community acceptance rate than in-persons assessments. It connects the right professional to the right application and then automates the recertification process.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:44:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/810906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>