<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>INDOT-JTRP LPA Process Improvement</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1440066</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) administers the INDOT Local Public Agency Program (LPA Program) to provide funds to local public agencies for transportation related improvement projects. The funds distributed through this program are federal funds and they are provided on a reimbursement basis (i.e., LPAs spend their own money on project related expenses then submit an LPA invoice-voucher for reimbursement). LPAs typically receive 80% reimbursement of allowable expenses. This project ran concurrent with a number of changes already taking place within INDOT to improve the LPA Program. The purpose of this project was to take a systematic look at all the factors impacting the overall length of projects and to find additional recommendations to shorten the time from Call for Projects to Letting. In addition, the project also collected feedback from numerous stakeholders around Indiana in an attempt to get an early indication on the effectiveness of changes already underway within the LPA Program. During the initial phase of this project, a series of people with first hand LPA experience were interviewed about specific “good projects” (ones that finished on time or nearly on time) and “bad projects” (ones that were cancelled or finished well beyond their originally scheduled completion date). Following those initial interviews, a series of interviews were scheduled with LPA stakeholders around the state to look for common themes, “pain points,” and improvement ideas. This report documents those common themes and lists a series of recommendations to address the pain points shared by the stakeholders. The recommendations are a combination of many ideas suggested by the people interviewed as a part of this project and discussions of “pain points” analyzed by the interviewers, principal investigator, business owner, and project advisor.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:11:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1440066</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Response and Recovery for Declared Emergencies and Disasters</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1405293</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This resource document is part of the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA’s) technical assistance to transit agencies. It addresses response and recovery actions that transit agencies can take, including securing funding and reimbursement for restoring services following a declared emergency or disaster. It is written specifically for transit agencies that are either affected by a declared emergency or disaster or that offer services to an affected community or region. It applies to all modes of transit and to all types of declared emergencies and disasters. It includes information about the types of resources and waivers of regulation available to transit agencies under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and FTA programs, including information about eligible reimbursements under the Stafford Act.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 08 May 2016 19:24:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1405293</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Actions Needed to Reduce Evolving but Uncertain Federal Financial Risks</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1127319</link>
      <description><![CDATA[On April 20, 2010, an explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig leased by BP America Production Company (BP) resulted in a significant oil spill. GAO was requested to (1) identify the financial risks to the federal government resulting from oil spills, particularly Deepwater Horizon, (2) assess the Coast Guard’s internal controls for ensuring that processes and payments for spill-related cost reimbursements and claims related to the spill are appropriate, and (3) describe the extent to which the federal government oversees the BP and Gulf Coast Claims Facility cost reimbursement and claims processes. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued status reports in November 2010 and April 2011. This is the third and final report related to these objectives. Both the individual circumstances of the Deepwater Horizon incident, as well as the overall framework for how the federal government responds to oil spills, present a mix of evolving, but as yet uncertain, financial risks to the federal government and its Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (Fund). The extent of financial risks to the federal government from the Deepwater Horizon is closely tied to BP and the other responsible parties. BP established a $20 billion Trust to pay for individual and business claims and other expenses. As of May 31, 2011, BP has paid over $700 million of federal and state government costs for oil spill cleanup. Federal agency cleanup and restoration activities are under way and agencies continue to incur costs and submit them for reimbursement. However, the full extent of these costs, particularly those related to environmental cleanup, may not be fully realized for some time. As cleanup costs continue to mount, it is possible that expenditures from the Fund will reach the $1 billion total expenditure per incident cap. Expenditures were over $626 million on May 31, 2011. If these amounts reach the total expenditure cap of $1 billion, the Fund can no longer be used to make payments to reimburse agencies’ costs (or to pay valid individual or business claims if not paid by the responsible parties). At that point, government agencies would no longer be able to obtain reimbursement for their costs. In November 2010, GAO suggested that Congress may want to consider setting a Fund per incident cap based on net expenditures (expenditures less reimbursement), rather than total expenditures. Finally, GAO found the federal government’s longer-term ability to provide financial support in response to future oil spills is also at risk because the Fund’s primary source of revenue, a tax on petroleum products, is scheduled to expire in 2017. GAO’s testing of the Coast Guard’s internal controls over Deepwater Horizon claims processed and cost reimbursements processed and paid showed that adjudicated claims processed and costs reimbursed were appropriate and properly documented. In November 2010, GAO made four recommendations regarding establishing and maintaining effective cost reimbursement policies and procedures for the Fund. The Coast Guard changed its operating practices to reflect lessons learned from the initial response to the Deepwater Horizon incident, and it has updated its cost reimbursement procedures accordingly. However, the Coast Guard has not yet updated its procedures for processing significant claims, so lessons learned from its experiences processing Deepwater Horizon claims could be lost. Capturing lessons learned about processing such claims will be essential should a significant spill occur in the future. The federal government has used a variety of approaches to oversee BP’s and GCCF’s cost reimbursement and claims processing. Soon after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the federal government established a Deepwater Integrated Services Team (IST), which was initially responsible for monitoring BP’s claims process, among other things. Subsequently, the oversight of cost reimbursement and claims activities transitioned to the Department of Justice, which continues to lead this and other efforts. In addition, the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are serving as the federal government’s representatives for the natural resource trustees in evaluating the environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon spill and selecting and implementing restoration projects to be funded by BP. GAO is (1) reiterating that Congress may want to consider setting a Fund cap per incident based upon net expenditures, (2) presenting a new matter concerning extending the barrel tax used to finance federal oil spill responses to sustain program funding, and (3) making a recommendation to improve procedures for future significant spills.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:05:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1127319</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Road Pricing and Relocation Decisions of Dutch Households</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1089424</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article reports on a study that investigated the impact of road pricing charges on the decision people make to change residences or change jobs.  The authors present their theoretical framework, the study design and data, the results, and a final discussion of the factors that influence the probability of people changing locations due to road pricing.  The study used stated preference data collected among Dutch respondents.  About 5% of the respondents indicated a reasonably high probability of moving their residence if a road pricing measure were to be implemented; regarding changing jobs, approximately 13.5% of respondents answered in the positive. The variables that affect people’s decision to move house or change jobs were found to be more or less the same.   Factors include plan to change residence within two years, living in regions suffering from traffic congestion, living in larger municipalities, education level, home ownership, travel costs reimbursement, satisfaction with current position, and perceptions of the impact of the road pricing.  Somewhat unexpectedly, the price level of the road pricing measure does not seem to have a significant impact.  The authors conclude with a discussion of the importance of relocations and policy implications, and the reliability of their research results.  They stress the importance of including relocations when evaluating the consequences of road pricing policies.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:34:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1089424</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Funding for Pupil Transportation: Framework for Analysis</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/802147</link>
      <description><![CDATA[School districts spend approximately $17 billion annually on pupil transportation. More than half of all students in the United States are eligible for transportation at public expense. Despite this major financial investment and the large number of daily student trips, relatively little scholarly material is written on funding for pupil transportation. This article provides research background on pupil transportation funding, establishes a comprehensive framework of analysis for evaluating methods of state funding, and presents case studies of six states to highlight institutional differences. The key questions about state pupil transportation policy are (a) whether pupil transportation is mandated by the state, (b) what the eligibility requirements are for state aid, and (c) what formula is used for reimbursement. Funding for pupil transportation varies greatly among states, with differences that include student eligibility for transportation, funding formulas, and state aid as a percentage of transportation costs. The primary method of pupil transportation funding consists of state reimbursement for a portion of a school district’s expenditures. The remaining costs must then be covered by local funding sources. Unlike some other areas of school finance, pupil transportation programs receive little funding from the federal government. The research also identifies safety, school siting, and walking to school as areas in which pupil transportation policies have important impacts.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:07:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/802147</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Homeless Student Transportation Project Evaluation</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/806323</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Washington State funded pilot homeless student transportation programs from 2004-2006 to implement provisions of the McKinney-Veneto Homeless Education Assistance Act (2001). The Act requires school districts to provide transportation to homeless students wishing to remain in their school of origin. This formative evaluation addressed four questions about those pilot efforts: (1) what modes of transportation were used; (2) what did they cost; (3) which were preferred; and (4) did staying in the school of origin affect students' academic performance? The study analyzed readership and cost data from eight educational service districts and interviewed homeless students, parents, transportation coordinators, and homeless liaisons. Findings include the following: (1) Districts used a wide array of methods to transport students, employing school buses, public transit, vans, taxis, private vehicles, fuel vouchers, mileage reimbursement, and transportation brokerage systems. School buses provided 38% of the trips, followed by third-party brokered transportation (cars, taxis, and vans) at 28%, and public transit at 22%. (2) Homeless student transportation was usually expensive. The cost to the school districts of one-way homeless student trips varied widely depending on locality and mode, from a low of $0.14 to a high of $54. Public bus service was the least costly mode; however, it was used mostly for older students and only available in selected areas. The cost for providing homeless students with public bus service ranged from $ 0.14 to $1.00 per one-way trip. By comparison, the cost for providing homeless students a one-way trip via school bus ranged from $4.50 to $54. (The average cost for a one-way school bus trip for the general student population is about $0.67.) (3) Staying in one's school of origin was associated with better Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) scores. In our limited data set, homeless students had lower grade point averages and lower WASL scores than the general student population. However, among homeless students, those staying in their school of origin achieved better WASL scores and better high school grades than those who changed schools.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:08:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/806323</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Unit Cost and Construction Specification Framework for Utility Installations</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/806303</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Utility Accommodation Rules (UAR) prescribe minimums relative to the accommodation, location, installation, adjustment, and maintenance of utility facilities on the state right of way (ROW). The UAR only cover basic requirements, which makes it necessary to rely on additional guidelines, specifications, and special provisions to handle situations that are not covered by the rules. Because of the lack of standard utility installation construction specifications at the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), many different versions of special specifications and special provisions exist around the state. Closely related to the need to standardize construction specifications for utility installations is the need to standardize methodologies and procedures for the determination of utility relocation costs. In practice, utility companies use a variety of ways to submit utility relocation costs for reimbursement. This lack of standardization translates into difficulties such as how to verify the validity of the cost data submitted for reimbursement and how to adequately prepare for audits and other internal and external inquiries. This report summarizes the work completed to develop a prototype framework of construction specification requirements and corresponding unit cost work items for utility installations at TxDOT and recommendations on how to implement that framework in Texas. The report includes a review of utility relocation and reimbursement practices, describes a prototype unit cost structure framework, describes a prototype framework for water and sanitary sewer specifications, discusses utility installation special provisions, and summarizes conclusions and recommendations for implementation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:19:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/806303</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>INNOVATIVE FINANCING OPTIONS FOR KENTUCKY'S TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/659827</link>
      <description><![CDATA[During the last two decades, Kentucky's Road Fund revenue growth has dramatically lagged behind the growth of motor vehicle travel.  As a consequence, Kentucky must search for alternative and innovative means of financially supporting the continued maintenance and development of the state's system of roads.  The purpose of this study was to review and analyze new transportation financing innovations suggested by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).  The FHWA suggestions may provide ways to leverage funds from traditional sources and to incorporate new sources of revenue into the Commonwealth's transportation financing plan.  In the study, the workings of these financing innovations were evaluated and other states' applications of these financing techniques were reviewed.  In addition, a preliminary assessment was made of the potential applicability of these financing innovations in Kentucky. Obstacles and barriers to their use were also identified.  Five general categories of innovative transportation financing options were evaluated:  (1) the TE-045 Program; (2) State Infrastructure Banks; (3) GARVEEs (grant anticipation revenue vehicles) and FRANs (federal reimbursement anticipation notes); (4) the TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure and Innovation Act); and (5) public/private partnerships.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/659827</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EMERGING FINANCIAL INNOVATIONS: PRESENTATIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/475892</link>
      <description><![CDATA[These four presentations on innovative transportation finance discuss emerging financial innovations.  The first addresses the funding of airport projects, such as the extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system to the airport.  The second discusses lease/leaseback transactions, with a walk through of a generic $100 million transaction.  The third describes the Federal Highway Administration's findings from workshops conducted on innovative financing among the states.  The fourth discusses federal assistance through bond reimbursement, grant anticipation revenue vehicles (GARVEEs), and three new programs in the National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act (NEXTEA):  a border gateway pilot program, the credit enhancement program, and a deployment incentive program to implement innovative technologies.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/475892</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HIGHWAY/UTILITY GUIDE. FINAL REPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/380412</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The "Highway/Utility Guide" is dedicated to the memory of Mr. James A. Carney (Federal Highway Administration) who recognized a need, envisioned this publication, and contributed generously of his time and technical expertise towards its completion.  For many years there has been a need to assemble, under one cover, state-of-the-knowledge guidance on the better practices being employed to address the full array of issues which can arise from highway and utility facilities sharing common right-of-way. The "Highway/Utility Guide" is such a document.  It provides useful information relevant to joint use issues, a historical perspective, and good current practices.  Issues addressed in the "Highway/Utility Guide" include:  planning and coordination, design, permits, information management and mapping, notification procedures, legal, safety, construction, maintenance, relocation reimbursement, and others.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 03 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/380412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>