<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>Enhancing ADOT Communications to Reduce Highway Litter</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2659352</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report summarizes a statewide study commissioned by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to inform and enhance anti-litter communications and operational litter remediation practices as they pertain to the Arizona state highway system. The project team conducted communications research, developed a highway visible litter characterization plan and tool, completed two seasonal field surveys (May and November 2023) at 60 randomized sites, analyzed litter composition and sources, identified litter hotspots, evaluated ADOT’s Adopt a Highway program impacts on litter and litter abatement costs, and estimated ADOT’s litter-related costs for FY2021–FY2024. Key findings include: an estimated 364.4 million pieces of litter on the SHS (38,452 pieces/mile on average), with small litter comprising 82.8% of items; tire tread dominated the inventory (173.5 million pieces; 47.6%), vehicle debris was the largest source (54%), motorists accounted for 33% of litter, and five interstate hotspots were identified. AAH volunteers contributed approximately 334,000 hours with an estimated four-year labor value of $2.5M and SHS sites that had approximately 50% less large litter than non-AAH sites. ADOT’s litter abatement costs averaged $8.8–$9.5M in FY2021–FY2024. The report provides targeted recommendations for litter communications, district-level litter collection operations, financial management, and procurement. Recommendations include data tracking, contract evaluation, staff engagement, targeted operational practices, and general and targeted anti-litter communication strategies all in an effort to reduce litter, improve cost tracking, and guide future litter program and communication development and evaluation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2026 08:39:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2659352</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Study on Relations among Residents-Participatory Road Maintenance Activities and Other Community Activities</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2276962</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper focuses on various effects of residents-participatory road maintenance activities. A case study was conducted over 'Kitakyushu Road Supporters Program' which applies so-called adopt program system. Based on an interview survey over 14 leaders of the registered road support groups, properties of their prescribed road maintenance activities and unprescribed various community activities, and the relations among those activities were analyzed. This paper finally found that 1) the program actually supports the various unprescribed community activities as well as prescribed road maintenance activities, 2) the program also strengthen residents-network and cooperation with various administrative organizations, and 3) those activities are limited within those community areas of respective support groups.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2024 16:14:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2276962</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Case Study: Minnesota Highway Sponsorship Program</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2018814</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Many State DOTs across the country operate Adopt-A-Highway and Highway Sponsorship programs to leverage public-private partnerships to share maintenance responsibilities and improve highway aesthetics. However, the innovative Highway Sponsorship program designed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) goes well beyond the traditional erecting a sponsor recognition sign in exchange for simple landscaping and litter collection. Instead, the MnDOT Highway Sponsorship program gives private companies and civic organizations the opportunity to collaborate with MnDOT to develop and implement a wide range of highway beautification and maintenance projects. The program promotes long-term partnerships for projects that meet the needs of the program sponsor as well as MnDOT goal of improving highway aesthetics and sustainability.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2022 09:12:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2018814</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Update of Selected Studies in Transportation Law, Volume 8, Section 1: Civil Rights and Transportation Agencies</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1666109</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This digest analyzes federal laws and regulations as they affect transportation agencies in their business practices, construction of facilities, hiring, and services provided to the public. Specifically, the digest discusses:  1) the constitutionality of the U.S. DOT’s disadvantaged business enterprise program applicable to public contracting and judicial precedents since Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena; 2) disparate impact cases that have arisen out of the location of highways and related projects and the effects of Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and § 602 of Title VI; 3) the constitutional and statutory authority for § 1983 actions based on the authority of Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; 4) the statutory and regulatory framework for claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); 5) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a proscription of disparate treatment by employers in hiring, including pattern-or-practice discrimination, promotions, suspensions, and terminations; 6) the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the prohibition of discrimination in employment, in providing public services, and in providing accommodations to individuals with disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs; and 7) the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically state Adopt-a-Highway programs and free speech in the workplace.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2019 14:53:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1666109</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Partnerships for
Promoting Pollinator
Habitat</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1416833</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A 2014 Presidential Memorandum promoting pollinator habitat in light of recent population declines has prompted strong interest in the use of roadside rights of way (ROWs) to promote native plants and support habitats for pollinators. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) would like to learn about the experiences of other state departments of transportation and local agencies in maintaining pollinator landscapes on highway ROWs through partnerships with individuals, groups or local agencies. In this Transportation Research Synthesis, results of a literature review are supplemented with findings from a survey of selected state departments of transportation (DOTs) and Minnesota counties. Nine state DOTs describe current practices or plans to develop new pollinator-specific partnerships; existing partnerships that have been expanded to address pollinators; and Adopt-a-Highway programs that support maintenance of vegetation in the ROW.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 09:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1416833</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Sustainable Highway Evaluation</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1319862</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In fall 2010, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released its Sustainable Highways Self-Evaluation Tool (since renamed the Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool or INVEST). The tool provides a means by which transportation agencies can assess their policies and practices to determine how well sustainability is integrated into their planning, projects and operations. As part of its Sustainability Flagship Initiative, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) was looking for a programmatic way to assess the sustainability of current agency policies and practices. The INVEST tool offered a means for accomplishing that. MnDOT retained HDR Engineering, Inc., a consultant firm, to: Objectively review MnDOT information using the tool, Develop a “score” for each component, Report the findings, Help MnDOT establish a benchmark for its future use and Recommend enhancements to MnDOT programs and practices. MnDOT is the first DOT in the nation to have used INVEST. Chapter 2 of this report provides an assessment of MnDOT’s agency-wide programs and practices based on the System Planning and Processes criteria in the beta version of FHWA’s Sustainable Highways (INVEST) tool. Chapter 3 provides an assessment of MnDOT’s agency-wide programs and practices based on the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) criteria in the beta version of FHWA’s Sustainable Highways (INVEST) tool. It offers best practice recommendations and suggestions from other transportation agencies for MnDOT’s consideration. In Chapter 4, to support MnDOT’s evaluation of its sustainability practices, several roadway projects were evaluated using FHWA’s Pilot Version of the Sustainable Highways Self-Evaluation Tool.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:03:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1319862</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Highway Trust Fund: Overview of Highway Trust Fund Estimates. Testimony</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/780866</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Highway Trust Fund is the principal mechanism for funding federal highway and transit programs through receipts from excise taxes charged to highway users, such as taxes on motor fuels. The Department of Treasury (Treasury) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) each prepare estimates of future receipts for the Highway Trust Fund semiannually. Treasury's receipt estimates are combined with the Department of Transportation's (DOT) estimates of outlays to create an estimate of the Highway Trust Fund balance for the President's Budget; CBO also projects outlays to develop an estimate of the fund balance. The agencies’ most recent estimates show that the Highway Account within the Highway Trust Fund could have a negative balance as early as 2009, raising concerns about whether funding for federal highway programs—which were recently authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users—will continue to be met. Consequently, the Subcommittee asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review and compare recent estimates made by Treasury and CBO. This testimony provides information on how (1) estimates are used to provide key information about the Highway Trust Fund, (2) the most recent Highway Trust Fund estimates—based on receipt estimates made by Treasury and CBO—compare, and (3) Treasury’s and CBO’s estimates compare to actual receipts for recent years. Due to the nature of the receipts and disbursement processes of the Highway Trust Fund, estimates are used regularly not only to project the Highway Trust Fund’s future balance, but also to determine its current balance. Treasury’s receipts collection processes for the Highway Trust Fund rely on estimates based on historical receipts to determine how much should be transferred from the General Fund into the Highway Trust Fund on a semimonthly basis. DOT and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also use estimates based on future receipts in calculating annual adjustments to authorization levels, and DOT uses estimates based on historical fuel consumption to determine apportionments from the Highway Trust Fund to states. Because estimates are used throughout the process of collecting and disbursing funds for the Highway Trust Fund, it is important that estimates be as accurate as possible. The most recent Highway Trust Fund estimates from the President’s Budget and CBO show similar trends, even though Treasury and CBO use different assumptions to estimate receipts for the fund. The Highway Trust Fund balance is projected to steadily decline because estimated outlays of the Highway Account exceed estimated revenues each year from 2006 through 2011. Treasury projects lower receipts levels than CBO, and therefore the President’s Budget contains estimates of negative Highway Trust Fund balances occurring one year earlier than CBO is projecting. The differences in receipts estimates developed by Treasury and CBO are caused in part by the use of different economic assumptions, such as economic growth and fuel prices. When compared with actual Highway Trust Fund receipts, the accuracy of Treasury’s and CBO’s Highway Trust Fund estimates are not very different from each other. Neither agency’s estimates have been consistently closer or further away from the actual amounts. For example, the estimates of the two agencies are closest or furthest from actual receipts in the same years. These comparisons of past performance should not be taken as an indicator of the future performance of the models.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:10:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/780866</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Study of the National Scope and Potential for Improvement of State Economic Development Highway Programs, (Task C, D, E Report), Case Studies and National Summary of State Economic Development Highway Programs</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/751088</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A growing number of states have initiated "economic development highway programs" - programs that provide funding to improve local or regional access as deemed necessary to attract and grow businesses.  This report is the second of a two-part series.  The first report, "Overview of State Economic Development Highway Programs," Task A-B Report, provided a definition and classification of the different types of state-funded economic development highway programs and a profile description of each state's highway-related economic development program.  This, the second report, follows up with in-depth case studies of four state programs to show how they have evolved over time in response to both external factors (shifting public policy needs) and internal factors (efforts to reorganize or optimize operation of the program).  It also discusses the appropriateness of a potential federal role to help support or improve these types of transportation investment programs as seen by state officials in four states.  The four case studies - Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wisconsin - were selected to represent a wide range of geographic, economic and political settings.  The findings are notable for both the similarities and differences in programs among the states.  Part 1 of this report provides background information.  Parts 2-5 present, respectively, the four in-depth case studies.  Part 6 provides an estimate of the total magnitude of economic development related funding by state departments of transportation and an assessment of the extent to which there may be a role for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to play in helping guide such programs.  Part 7 discusses the extent of need and potential for benefit if FHWA was to develop guidelines on highway economic development as seen by those interviewed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2005 16:21:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/751088</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AUSTRALIA'S 5-YEAR ROAD PROGRAM GUARANTEES FUNDING</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/270603</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A new 5-year transport program that will guarantee road funding and raise $583 million in its fiscal year will replace Australia's Road Grant Act which expired in 1985. The program includes provision for rail and road research, road safety promotions and research, as well as modest investment in upgrading interstate moisture rail.  Under this Australian Land Transport Program, the management of Federal funding for road and rail transport systems will be amalgamated into one package and funded by a dedicated and indexed share of existing fuel excise tax.  The advantages of the new program are listed, and areas in which the monies will be spent are discussed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:59:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/270603</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM NEEDS: REVENUES AND COST ALLOCATION ISSUES. HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS. UNITED STATES SENATE. NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/214844</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The opening statements are presented of the Senators James Abdnor, Jennings Randolf, RObert Stafford and Steve Symms, as well as the statements of witnesses testifying before the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Full Committee on Environment and Public Works.  These Hearings before the above Subcommittee focused on Federal Highway needs and how they can be addressed in view of existing revenues, and the allocation of highway costs among the various users of our highways.  The testimony of the witnesses will focus on a number of important issues which will assist in making recommendations to the Finance Committee on Highway Revenue and the continuation of the highway trust fund. Specifically, the following issues are addressed:  the condition of the Federal aid highway system and factors affecting the service life of the system; the needs of the Federal-aid highway system versus the existing revenues coming into the highway trust fund; the allocation of highway costs among the various highway user classes; and proposals to change the structure of existing highway user fees.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:42:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/214844</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HIGHWAY SYSTEM LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/188849</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The highway system level of development plan discussed defines highway engineering programs so that optimum benefits are derived from limited fiscal resources.  This is done by concentration on essential improvements rather than desirable ones, and is different from current methods.  The highway system level of development plan has been prepared for use in Washington State, but it is transferable to other states.  Proposed three levels of development are defined.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2001 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/188849</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>KEEPING AMERICAN ROADS BEAUTIFUL</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/657525</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The state of Oklahoma; Weld County, Colorado; the city of Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and Monsanto, Austin, Texas; were winners of the 1999 National Roadside Vegetation Management Association Roadside Excellence award.  Oklahoma's Adopt-A-Highway currently covers 2,200 mi.  It has led to the birth of Adopt-A-Airport, which claims to be the first such state program.  The annual Trash Off is another branch of the Adopt-A-Highway program.  The serious side of the state's involvement is the Litter Hotline and Trash Cop Program.  The beauty mark of Oklahoma's roadside maintenance is the wildflower program.  The Wildflower Workshop is now in its 23rd year, and there is an intensive planting program every fall.  At the end of May 2000, the state will install its first piece of highway art. Weld County deals with 3,279 road miles.  When performing spot treatment noxious weed control, the county has three trucks carrying computers to record the data and calculate how much of an acre was sprayed in a given mile.  The county also has a total vegetation control program and does a lot of preemergent bareground work.  Winston-Salem now has 53,000 trees lining its right-of-way, and more are being planted every year.  The city has a preventive maintenance program, where the goal is to trim trees on 80% of the streets per year.  Mowing is conducted biweekly on interstates, weekly on primary corridors, and every 3 weeks in residential areas.  Monsanto provides support for the Texas Department of Transportation pesticide training and research programs as well as city and county roadside vegetation programs across the state.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/657525</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>REPORT TO THE STATE OF IOWA 78TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY: "ADOPT-A-HIGHWAY PROGRAM DANGERS"</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/648297</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The State of Iowa 78th General Assembly directed the Department of Transportation (DOT) to conduct a study regarding Adopt-A-Highway activities and potential safety hazards posed by debris/features along the roadside, and regarding ways to minimize the risks to volunteers and the environment.  A study committee sent surveys to nearly 3,000 sponsors and DOT maintenance garage employees.  The committee also obtained technical information about the specific potential safety and environmental risks posed by various types of debris/features. Results showed that the chances are 23% or less that an Adopt-A-Highway program sponsor doing litter pick-up on the right-of-way of a non-interstate road will encounter debris they consider hazardous.  Of the 1,180 sponsors who responded, 26 reported past injuries to themselves or to someone in their group.  Most injuries were relatively minor such as small cuts, scratches, or rashes.  Based on input from the Iowa DPH, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the DOT, the study committee recommends that the department continue the current safety precautions.  These include increasing motorist awareness of litter pick-up activities by providing signs, orange vests and bags, and providing brochures listing safety practices such as not removing items that could be hazardous and wearing gloves and hard-soled shoes.  It is also recommended that the department incorporate into the program the additional safety and environmental practices suggested by the DOT, the Iowa DPH, the Iowa DNR, and Adopt-A-Highway volunteers.  For instance, sponsors are specifically cautioned to contact the DOT for removal of medical waste and drug paraphernalia.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2000 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/648297</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EMERGING MODELS FOR DELIVERING TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES: A REPORT OF THE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT SCAN TOUR</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/500513</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This digest summarizes the findings of an international technology scanning review conducted with the support of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-36, "Highway Research and Technology - International Information Sharing."  The scanning review team consisted of representatives from U.S. federal, state, and private sector agencies.  They examined how other developed countries are coping with budgetary constraints that lead to downsizing and restructuring of their transportation agencies.  The countries visited were Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.  For each country, findings are reported in the following areas:  (1) general background and organizational structure; (2) roles of government and the private sector in the delivery and maintenance of transportation facilities; (3) use of performance measures for producing programs and products and for allocating resources; and (4) innovative approaches for developing and implementing highway programs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/500513</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAMS: STATUS OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAMS IN THE ABSENCE OF REAUTHORIZATION. TESTIMONY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/496534</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This is the statement of Phyllis F. Scheinberg, Associate Director, Transportation Issue, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate.  In 1991 the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) authorized over $122 billion in federal funds for highway programs for fiscal years 1992-1997.  This authorization expired on September 30, 1997, and no new federal highway funds have been authorized for fiscal year 1998.  The states can however, use their unobligated balances that remain from the ISTEA authorization period.  For all 50 states, these federal-aid highway balances totaled $12.1 billion at the beginning of fiscal year 1998.  This testimony compares unobligated federal highway fund balances at the beginning of fiscal year 1998 with the highway funds that the states obligated during the first part of fiscal year 1997.  The testimony also addresses strategies that could temporarily help the states continue to fund highway programs in the absence of a federal highway authorization act.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/496534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>