<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>Method for an economical assessment of urban transport systems</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1581279</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper presents an intermodal method for identifying municipal expenses and revenues in the transport sector and allocates them to the urban transport systems: pedestrian, bicycle, car, truck traffic and local public transport. The method is based on full cost accounting, in that the total transport-related costs are allocated to the urban transport systems based on a top-down-approach. The method is centered on the development of allocation keys and attribution factors based on scientific engineering findings. For a complete economic comparison, various assessment methods are presented, taking the most important transport-related external effects into account (accident costs, air pollution costs, climate change costs, noise costs and health benefits in walking and cycling). The external effects have been based on existing national and international methods, which are monetized with corresponding (accepted) cost factors from the appropriate scientific literature. The method allows cost transparency and determines economic indicators that can serve as a basis for discussion and decision-making in the allocation of funds for the different urban transport systems. Besides that, it can be used directly to seek out goal indicators in urban development and transportation planning. With the approach presented here, for the first time municipalities will be able to have a complete overview of their transport-related revenues, expenses and external effects, each differentiated by urban transport system. This results in an additional and important instrument for strategic transportation planning and a next step on the road to ‘true costs in the transport sector’.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:14:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1581279</guid>
    </item>
    <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>State and Local Use of Administrative Resources Provided by the Federal Transit Administration</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1511935</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report documents and presents the results of a study of how administrative resources for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs are utilized by State Departments of Transportation. The purpose of the study is to help justify the promotion of efficient and effective approaches to program management at the State Departments of Transportation oversight level. Research documents current practices for using Federal funds for various expenses including salaries, travel, operating expenses, and contracting. Research results and innovative practices identified in the report are provided for State FTA program managers to consider as potential administrative approaches that would be an aid to program management. The innovative approaches included in the report identify how other States utilize funds to meet the ongoing expenses of program management including the use of technology, staffing strategies, and other opportunities.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 10:18:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1511935</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Determination of How Federal Section 5316 Funds Were Used Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21); The Degree to which JARC and the New Freedom Activities Are Being Continued Under MAP-21 and the FAST Act; JARC and the New Freedom Act Then and Now</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1511963</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report documents the results of an analysis of the differences between the uses, administration, and management of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA's) Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and Section 5317 New Freedom programs under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), as well as the degree to which JARC and New Freedom activities were funded once the programs were eliminated under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). JARC was transformed from a discretionary funding program under TEA-21 to a formula driven program under SAFETEA-LU before being eliminated altogether in 2012 under MAP-21. Changes in funding levels and distribution mechanisms as well as changes in program and project administration requirements have had a significant impact on the JARC program and JARC-funded projects. This report includes a review of historical (since 1999) Section 5316 funding allocation data by state, and, more importantly, compares the distribution of funding to large urban, small urban, and rural areas under TEA- 21 and SAFETEA-LU. This report also provides the history of the New Freedom program as well as an analysis of New Freedom funding and uses since its authorization in 2006 under SAFETEA-LU. The research is based upon a detailed review of available grants data, as well as information collected from two national surveys and interviews and focus groups with state department of transportation (DOT) and other program stakeholders. The research found that a majority of state DOT representatives preferred the formula distribution of JARC funding under SAFETEA-LU or its consolidation with FTA’s Section 5307 Urbanized Area and Section 5311 Rural Area Formula programs under MAP-21 to the discretionary funding model provided by TEA-21. This report further finds that while state DOTs who participated in the research favored MAP-21’s consolidation of the New Freedom program with the Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities program, transit agencies in urban and rural areas and program administrators in urbanized areas tended to disapprove of the change. Finally, the research finds that New Freedom-type projects have been more successful than former JARC projects at securing funding through their MAP-21 (and now, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act) programs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 10:18:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1511963</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Documentation of FTA Section 5310 Recipients and Projects Before the Enactment of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21); The National Perspective - An Assessment of Section 5310 Program Administration Under MAP-21; Section 5310 Program - Then and Now</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1511962</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report presents the results of an analysis on the impacts of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) funding formula for, and administrative procedures of, the Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities program. MAP-21 directs that 60 percent of program funding be used in urbanized areas with a population over 200,000; 20 percent in urbanized areas of between 50,000 and 200,000 in population; and 20 percent in rural areas. Previously, under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Section 5310 funds were distributed to a single designated recipient in each state (typically the state department of transportation (DOT)) that had discretion to award funds anywhere in the state where transportation needs for the elderly and disabled were deemed to be the greatest. This report presents Section 5310 funding allocations by state from FY 2010 through FY 2014 and compares their distribution to large urban, small urban, and rural areas under SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21. A survey of state DOTs was undertaken to collect historical data on states’ allocation of Section 5310 for the last three years of SAFETEA-LU (FY 2010 – 2012). The data collected to support this research reveal the MAP-21 formula to be inconsistent with how states allocated Section 5310 funding under SAFETEA-LU. Specifically, every state that participated in this research directed more than 20 percent of their annual Section 5310 funding to rural areas in the final three years of SAFETEA-LU and, collectively, allocated almost 50 percent of Section 5310 resources to rural areas. This report further finds that the practice of administering the Section 5310 program changed dramatically under MAP-21, particularly in larger urban areas. The absence of information on the program and associated training directed toward state and local stakeholder agencies – both in the months leading up to the enactment of MAP-21, and afterwards – proved to be a serious challenge in their ability to effectively deliver Section 5310 funding in a post-SAFETEA-LU environment.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 10:18:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1511962</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Sources of Funding Transit in Texas</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1481076</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report provides information on the sources of revenue to fund transit in urban and rural areas in Texas—through federal, state, and local sources. All public transit systems are eligible for federal funds from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The state agency responsible for allocating state transit funds is the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The report is organized by four topics: (1) An explanation of the three categories of transit systems in Texas: Transit authorities and municipal transit departments; Urban transit districts; and Rural transit districts. (2) A discussion of each of the FTA federal funding programs to support transit in urban and rural areas. (3) An explanation of the formula used to allocate state transit funds appropriated by the Texas Legislature each biennium to urban and rural transit districts. (4) A description of sources of local revenues. In Texas, transit authorities and municipal transit departments are authorized by voters to impose a sales tax dedicated to transit. Urban and rural transit districts do not have access to a dedicated local funding source and must generate local revenues from other sources. The report provides a summary of the revenues applied for operating and capital expenses in fiscal year (FY) 2016.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 03 Sep 2017 20:11:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1481076</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Relationship Between Oil and Gas Energy Developments and Pavement Conditions in Texas</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1439178</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In recent years, the state of Texas has experienced a significant increase in oil and gas well developments thanks to advancements in drilling technology. While the private sector has enhanced Texas’ economy, the new unconventional drilling methods tend to generate high volumes of truck traffic. Many of the affected roads were never designed to carry high truck volumes and heavy wheel loads. The result has been accelerated pavement deterioration, degradation of roadside infrastructure, and increases in congestion, crashes and air emissions. In an effort to gain a better understanding of the transportation system and be able to effectively respond to existing and future transportation needs, the Texas Legislature asked for the documentation of locations and trends of oil and gas well developments throughout the state and the investigation of the relationship between energy developments and pavement conditions. Addressing these objectives required the analysis of several datasets including oil and gas well locations, drilling permit attribute data, oil and gas production data, injection well data, pavement condition scores, and maintenance expenditures. The analysis showed that pavement conditions worsened in most areas where oil and gas well developments were particularly active, even though the roadway maintenance expenditures had substantially increased by more than 100%. The results can be used to update current policies and adjust funding allocation formulas. Some of the findings can be used as the basis to develop forecasting tools, which may be useful in situations where certain factors remain reasonably stable and there is a need for high-level predictions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:19:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1439178</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Strategies for Allocating Limited Airport Pavement Funds</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1213940</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Washington State Department of Transportation recently completed a system-wide Airport Pavement Management System study to assess the condition of pavements at 96 public-use airports. This paper summarizes the results of the study. It presents overall pavement condition statistics and the overall funding needs of the pavement system. Because there is a significant gap between needed versus anticipated funding levels, different physical improvement strategies and policy changes for mitigating the impact of the funding shortfall are presented. These include adding preventive maintenance requirements to grant eligibility criteria, the use of the state classification system to target pavement investments, the adjustment of the acceptable condition level standard to focus limited funding on critical pavements, the adoption of pavement performance measures that are not based solely on overall pavement condition of the state system, and the adoption of these performance measures into the statewide system plan performance measures.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:30:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1213940</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Tools to Support Pavement Management Investment Decisions for Achieving Multiple Target Objectives in a Local Agency</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1214531</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Multiple objectives are often used by agencies trying to manage pavement networks. If the goal is to achieve the target objectives at the minimum cost, tools are needed to assist agencies in identifying investment strategies capable of meeting target objectives while minimizing costs. A tool to identify the best combination of projects to meet target objectives at the minimum cost while maximizing treatment effectiveness is needed. Two alternative methods are compared for solving the allocation problem and for achieving the agency’s desired multiple objectives within pavement network condition constraints. The first method is the dynamic bubble-up technique (DBU) which is based on a sequential year ranking method. The second method is a multi-objective optimization model that uses integer programming techniques to estimate the investment needs required to meet the target objectives over a planning horizon. Both methods use concepts developed for the pavement management system supported by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay Area (MTC-PMS). Findings are presented from a case study conducted to assess how funding allocation methods influence maintenance and rehabilitation budget estimates over a planning horizon and consequently affect the future condition of the pavement network. Recommendations are also provided for incorporating the new methods into practical tools to improve existing pavement management practices.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:30:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1214531</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Tracking Investment in an Airport Pavement System</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1213710</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) has provided funding for pavement maintenance and rehabilitation at airports since the early 1970s. In 1998 it implemented an Airport Pavement Management System (APMS) and has actively used its APMS since that time for the management of the pavement infrastructure at 103 airports. This paper examines the process GDOT used to identify pavement needs and to allocate funds prior to, and after, the implementation of its APMS. It discusses the funding levels versus overall condition of the pavement network before and in the years after the implementation the APMS. The impact of using an APMS to make decisions regarding the expenditure of pavement-related dollars is also discussed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:30:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1213710</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Performance-Based Accountability Using a Pavement Management System</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1136336</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Since 1984, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the San Francisco Bay Area regional planning organization (MPO), has promoted pavement preservation principles. As most transportation professionals now know, it costs far less to keep roads in good condition through pavement preservation than it costs to allow the roadways to deteriorate to a point where major rehabilitation or reconstruction is required. Conversely, a “worst first” strategy prioritizes major rehabilitation or reconstruction and is reactive instead of proactive. Recently, MTC’s efforts to encourage preservation strategies have begun to pay dividends and jurisdictions have shifted away from “worst first” strategies. As a steward of federal funds, MTC is accountable for how funds made available for local street and road maintenance are spent. The maintenance of effort that was once required of local agencies is almost non-existent now. So how can regional agencies ensure that state and federal discretionary funds are being used to augment maintenance budgets instead of just supplanting existing funds? With the help of local jurisdictions and the pavement management software -- StreetSaver®, MTC was able to develop a regional funding policy that conditions funding not just on need, but on performance. The policy rewards jurisdictions for their efforts in the area of pavement preservation. This paper will describe how MTC has effectively moved toward performance-based accountability in the allocation of federal funds for street and road maintenance. The process that led up to the development of the funding policy including the setting of guiding principles, implementation challenges and lessons learned, will be discussed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:45:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1136336</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Point of View: The Right Fix at the Right Time</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1084102</link>
      <description><![CDATA[For nearly two decades, the Michigan Department of Transportation has applied an asset management approach to investing in its infrastructure, and local transportation partners have worked to do the same for almost 10 years.  In this article, the state agency's director reviews the practical lessons and the benefits, as the legislature considers funding allocations in adverse economic times.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:18:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1084102</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Intercity Bus Service Study 2007</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/899545</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objectives of this study were to provide the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) with an evaluation of the intercity bus industry in Alabama so that recommendations concerning Governor’s Certification of 5311(f) transit funds can be made. Additionally, if the study determines those needs are not being met, the study should make statewide (not community specific) recommendations concerning the use of intercity transit funds. The study team made the following observations considering the State of Alabama’s intercity bus service: 1. The intercity bus needs in Alabama are not being met. 2. 5311(f) funds in Alabama may be most effectively used in the following order of precedence: for planning and marketing for intercity bus transportation; for feeder routes to connect with intercity bus service; for over the road coaches for private providers; and for operating subsidies to private providers that provide restored intercity bus service. 3. If 5311(f) funds are used to support intercity bus service in Alabama, potential riders should be surveyed to learn their intercity bus needs and as input to select feeder routes that best serve Alabama’s rural citizens. 4. If 5311(f) funds are used to support intercity bus service in Alabama, representatives from ALDOT, Greyhound, Capital Trailways, 5311 providers, and other interested parties should meet early in the process to discuss such issues as scheduling, feeder route selection, and private sector in-kind match.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:43:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/899545</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Transit Security Grant Program: DHS Allocates Grants Based on Risk, but Its Risk Methodology, Management Controls, and Grant Oversight Can Be Strengthened</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/898459</link>
      <description><![CDATA[From fiscal years 2006 through 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has allocated about $755 million dollars to transit agencies through its Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) to protect transit systems and the public from terrorist attacks. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to evaluate the extent to which (1) TSGP funds are allocated and awarded based on risk; (2) DHS has allocated, awarded, and distributed TSGP grants in accordance with statutory deadlines and leading practices for collaborating agencies; and (3) DHS has evaluated the effectiveness of the TSGP and its investments. DHS has used a risk analysis model to allocate TSGP funding and award grants to higher-risk transit agencies, although transit agency officials have expressed concerns about changes that have occurred since the TSGP’s inception, such as revised priorities. The TSGP risk model includes all three elements of risk—threat, vulnerability, and consequence—but can be strengthened by measuring variations in vulnerability. DHS has held vulnerability constant, which limits the model’s overall ability to assess risk and more precisely allocate funds. Although TSA allocated about 90 percent of funding to the highest-risk agencies, lower-risk agency awards were based on other factors in addition to risk. In addition, TSA has revised the TSGP’s approach, methodology and funding priorities each year since 2006. These changes have raised predictability and flexibility concerns among transit agencies because they make engaging in long-term planning difficult. DHS met the statutory timeline requirements for allocating and awarding grants, but the two agencies that manage the TSGP—TSA and FEMA—lack defined roles and responsibilities, and only 3 percent of the funds awarded for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 have been spent as of February 2009. There is no documentation articulating the roles and responsibilities of the agencies, and grant information has not been passed between the two agencies which affected TSA’s ability to share grant status information with transit agencies. DHS met statutory deadlines for releasing grant guidance and acting upon applications, but management and resource issues have resulted in delays in approving projects and making funds available, including (1) lengthy project negotiations between transit agencies and TSA; (2) a backlog of required environmental reviews; and (3) a reported lack of personnel to conduct required reviews. As a result, according to FEMA records, as of February 2009, transit agencies have spent about $21 million of the $755 million that has been awarded for fiscal years 2006 through 2008. This spending rate is, in part, caused by agencies receiving authorization to spend grant dollars late in the grant period. Despite concerns over delays, FEMA has not communicated time frames for providing funding. In April 2004, GAO reported that timely grant awards are imperative to provide intended benefits. DHS has reported taking some actions to address delays, including shortening project approval times and hiring staff, but the effectiveness of these efforts is unknown. Although FEMA has taken initial efforts to develop measures to assess the effectiveness of its grant programs, TSA and FEMA lack a plan and related milestones for developing measures specifically for the TSGP, and thus DHS does not have the capability to measure the effectiveness of the program or its investments. Without such a plan, it will be difficult for TSA and FEMA to provide reasonable assurance that measures are being developed to assess the effectiveness of the program as intended. While FEMA is responsible for the financial controls and audits of the TSGP, it does not have a mechanism to systematically collect data and track grant projects throughout the grant process. As a result, FEMA cannot assess whether awards are timely or funds are being used effectively to reduce risk and increase transit system security. GAO recommends, among other things, that DHS strengthen its methodology for determining risk by measuring variations in vulnerability, define Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) roles for managing and monitoring the TSGP, develop a plan with milestones for measuring TSGP performance, and develop a process to systematically collect data, track grant activities, and communicate the availability of grant funding to transit agencies.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:25:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/898459</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Simulation-Based Network Maintenance Planning and Scheduling</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/899319</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Lock deterioration in a waterway network requires timely maintenance to maintain navigability and regular lockage service. Locks degrading over time have reduced capacities and increased service times. Because demand responds to service changes, the objective function maximizes the overall net benefits rather than the minimization of costs. To maximize the net benefits, it is important to schedule maintenance that preserves lock conditions above threshold values, provides minimum acceptable service, and reduces the risks of serious failures. With constrained budgets, network-level maintenance can be scheduled over a planning horizon. A waterway model that combines simulation and optimization was developed to allocate maintenance funds and to schedule maintenance tasks optimally. Numerical cases are evaluated by parallel processing. The promising demonstration of simulation-based optimization shows the applicability of the proposed methodology to network-level and component-level maintenance planning and scheduling.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:06:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/899319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>