<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>Virtual Public Involvement Practices in NEPA: Maryland Transportation Authority Chesapeake Bay Crossing Study: Tier 1</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2378061</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This case study discusses virtual public involvement (VPI) strategies implemented by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public hearing requirements for the Chesapeake Bay Crossing Study: Tier 1 NEPA (Tier 1 Study). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) typically requires that agencies hold in-person public hearings, in accordance with 23 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 128. MDTA held public hearings with both virtual and in-person participation options. The public hearings consisted of a virtual information room (VIR), which was made available in February 2021 on www.baycrossingstudy.com, and a series of virtual and in-person live testimony sessions held in April 2021. MDTA held multiple virtual and in-person events to reach the broad audience in the 100-square mile study area.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2024 09:14:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2378061</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Stabilization of subgrade soils during Interstate 95 lane widening</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1736629</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article presents a case study of a multi-phase project by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) to add two express toll lanes (ETLs) in each direction of Interstate 95. The ETLs were designed for a 25-year service life and 9.5 million 18-kip equivalent single axle loads (ESAL). Very soft soils and areas with very low California Bearing Ratio (CBR) were issues to be addressed by the contractor during the project, the challenges of which are detailed. The article examines logistical and scheduling challenges facing the project as well as solutions developed by the contractor to enable successful highway pavement design and construction.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2020 16:41:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1736629</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Use of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis to Evaluate Public-Private Partnerships</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1409694</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) would like to compare traditional procurement options to the design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) approach in public-private partnerships (P3) involving concession agreements so that it can estimate the proper valuation of private sector proposals. To do so, MnDOT needs information about conducting life-cycle cost analyses (LCCAs) of corridor, bridge and multi-modal projects to forecast operations and maintenance (O&M) costs over the long term. This information will help support MnDOT’s Alternative Transportation Finance, Sustainability, Asset Management and Bridge Risk Infrastructure Management initiatives. To meet this need, CTC & Associates conducted a literature review and interviews with experts from several departments of transportation (DOTs) about the use of LCCA for comparing traditional procurement options to P3 concessions projects. CTC & Associates found little direct information about the use of LCCA specifically for P3 projects, although there is a significant amount of guidance and research related to value for money (VfM) comparisons of public procurement options to P3 proposals, and to LCCA in general. Interview results suggested that states are using consultants to estimate the long-term O&M costs of projects, however, it is unclear whether consultants have a formal LCCA methodology for estimating such costs. CTC & Associates conducted a follow-up interview with a consultant to Georgia DOT that provided spreadsheets (one in Appendix A and another provided to MnDOT) for estimating O&M costs of Georgia DOT’s Northwest Corridor P3 project, which was initially conceived as a concession project but was transitioned to design-build-finance (DBF). Further, the Maryland Transportation Authority provided CTC & Associates with a consultant’s detailed estimates of costs of ownership over 30 years for its travel plaza concessions project (Appendix B). In Related Research, the authors of one report conducted a similar literature search on the use of LCCA for P3 projects and found no related reports, confirming CTC & Associates' findings that there seems to be little publicly available information in this area. CTC & Associates identified research and conducted interviews related to the following key topic areas: Major P3 Concessions Projects in the United States; Consultation with Experts; National Resources; and Related Research.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2016 14:55:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1409694</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Maryland Motor Carrier Program Performance Enhancement</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1305000</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Using the inspection summary data (24-1 reports) from Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) for years 2006 to 2010 and inspection and violation files of Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) for the same years, the Maryland State Police (MSP) and Maryland Transportation Authority Police (MdTAP) roadside inspections were evaluated. The comparison with peer states and the national trend found that the roadside inspections of Maryland are effective. Specifically, Maryland conducted more inspections than many other states in terms of the absolute number of inspections and the number of inspections normalized by population and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In addition, reduction in violations in Maryland was noticeable during these study years, a larger drop than the national average. This trend analysis suggests that population of safe trucks in Maryland has been increasing gradually, at rates higher than the national averages. This population of safe trucks may be the result of the effectiveness of prior inspection programs in the state and nationally. The Integer Programming resource allocation model successfully reallocated existing resources in a way to maximize benefits from avoided crashes. The modeling findings suggest that the current level of inspections, i.e. without resource reallocation, are quite effective and generate significant benefits to Maryland citizens. With resource reallocation, the benefits would increase significantly. Depending on scenarios, the percentage increase of additional benefits gained by resource reallocation ranges between 14.58% and 28.18% for the MSP roadside inspection program, and between 9.01% and 22.62% for the MdTAP roadside inspection program. A budget increase scenario was also considered. A budget increase of 10% using current inspection capacity, and assuming a 40% crash reduction coefficient, would result in MSP and MdTAP increasing benefits by 2.22% and 7.23% respectively. At the disaggregated level, the model recommends Truck Weigh and Inspection Stations (TWIS) conduct more level I and level II inspections, and fewer level III inspections. On the other hand, for MdTAP and MSP Roving County, an increase in level III inspections would have a significant impact on capturing potentially dangerous drivers who avoid fixed inspection locations on purpose.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:04:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1305000</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>MTA: Striving for Success</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/775930</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article describes the improvements that have been made to the Maryland Transportation Authority’s (MTA) transit systems in the Baltimore area as told through the leadership of CEO Lisa Dickerson. In order to improve paratransit services, MTA initiated a service named Mobility that used a model where two companies could compete against one another to provide the best service to passengers in need of specialized transportation. MTA also began a Greater Baltimore Bus Initiative (GBBI) to improve on their aging system- the initiative concluded that nearly 75,000 potential passengers were not receiving service at mid-day. Two other improvements are the final phase of a light rail system begun in 1988 in February of 2006 and increasing security with better lighting and increased police presence. MTA has also added 40 gas/electric buses to their fleet in 2006]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:26:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/775930</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Fresh Approach to Bridge Rehab</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/759929</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Maryland Transportation Authority has been directed to develop a fresh approach to rehabilitating the Bay Bridge after a recent investigation of problems with the resurfacing of the bridge's westbound span.  The resurfacing was part of a larger deck rehabilitation project.  Six factors were identified as contributing to the failure of concrete used to resurface portions of the span.  These factors include:  thin decks; inadequate preparation of the substrate surface; use of matrix restorer and epoxy bonding agent on the substrate; properties of the concrete mixture; cold temperature in which much of the concrete was placed; and inadequate curing methods.  The investigation team recommended that the state consider full-depth deck replacement for subsequent deck renovations and prequalification of consultants, contractors and suppliers to ensure that they are qualified to undertake the work.  A series of 21 specific technical safeguards were provided for any future overlay work.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:13:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/759929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>