<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=PHNlYXJjaD48cGFyYW1zPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJkYXRlaW4iIHZhbHVlPSJhbGwiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9InN1YmplY3Rsb2dpYyIgdmFsdWU9Im9yIiAvPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJ0ZXJtc2xvZ2ljIiB2YWx1ZT0ib3IiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9ImxvY2F0aW9uIiB2YWx1ZT0iMCIgLz48L3BhcmFtcz48ZmlsdGVycz48ZmlsdGVyIGZpZWxkPSJpbmRleHRlcm1zIiB2YWx1ZT0iJnF1b3Q7VXNlciB0YXhlcyZxdW90OyIgb3JpZ2luYWxfdmFsdWU9IiZxdW90O1VzZXIgdGF4ZXMmcXVvdDsiIC8+PC9maWx0ZXJzPjxyYW5nZXMgLz48c29ydHM+PHNvcnQgZmllbGQ9InB1Ymxpc2hlZCIgb3JkZXI9ImRlc2MiIC8+PC9zb3J0cz48cGVyc2lzdHM+PHBlcnNpc3QgbmFtZT0icmFuZ2V0eXBlIiB2YWx1ZT0icHVibGlzaGVkZGF0ZSIgLz48L3BlcnNpc3RzPjwvc2VhcmNoPg==" 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>Financing Roads in Great Britain</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/798620</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The British tradition of road finance and procurement has been one of almost complete separation between decisions on road user taxation and expenditure on roads.  Road users pay taxes which are set by the Treasury alongside income and indirect taxes as part of fiscal policy.  Expenditures on roads are undertaken by a mixture of the Highways Agency for national roads and local authorities for local roads.  It is worth noting two significant moments in history. The principal sources of taxation in Great Britain are from road vehicles are fuel duty and vehicle excise duty.  Governments have adopted a rather loose policy that all classes of road user should pay taxes a t least to cover their road use costs.  This was seen as an important principle for heavy goods vehicles, in order to assure “fair compensation” between road and rail-based freight transport.  This led to engineering and economic studies of the cost structure of road provision and relationships with taxes.  For many years, until the mid-1990s, an annual report of road use costs and taxes was produced, though there remained many questions about vehicle categories, allocated cost formulae, on average versus marginal costs, treatment of external costs and so on.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:35:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/798620</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Motorways and Motorway Finance in Germany and Austria</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/798604</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper describes how, in Germany as well as in Austria, the motorways were constructed through state activity since the beginning.  While in Austria the model of public provision, management and finance has changed since 1982, when the State-owned Autobahnen und SchnellstraBen-Finanzierungs-Aktiengesellschaft (ASFINAG) under private law was founded, in Germany there is still the traditional public regime for motorways.  The road users pay taxes, but these are in effect not used for road infrastructure but instead they go into the general budget.  Presently, only one-third of the total tax payments of motorists consisting of fuel and vehicle taxes as well as the VAT on the fuel tax are spent on road infrastructure.  This has led to serious complaints from the industry and other stakeholders.  Against a background of static or even decreasing tax income and the rising cost of infrastructure provision, a change of the financing model is being discussed in Germany.  This discussion was greatly stimulated by a high-government commission on infrastructure finance, which submitted its suggestions to the government in 2000.  This chapter discusses the development towards the change of the financial model and its consequences for the public budget.  The principles of charging and the institutional settings which are associated with the change of the model will also be focused on.  As the present, concepts of motorways charging are partial approaches, which are associated with a number of failures and shortcomings, the chapter will conclude with future prospects towards a more complete economic concept of network-wide charging of road traffic.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:35:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/798604</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Methods of Increasing Transportation Funding</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/793440</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper describes how virtually every transportation department is facing a funding shortfall in today’s marketplace. It describes how person travel and goods movement continues to grow at a rate far faster than the ability to fund transportation infrastructure improvements. Transportation needs are outstripping available funding virtually everywhere in the world. This paper also describes how a state or other public agency could greatly increase funding available for transportation by using a range of conventional and creative but realistic approaches to funding. All methods are easily understood. The paper suggests how to tie payments to users and beneficiaries to ease public acceptance. The methods covered include a combination of user fees, user taxes, and other taxes. Some would be generated at the state level. Others could be generated at a local agency or transportation authority level and used for state transportation department projects that benefit the local area. All methods to be presented are applicable in almost all U.S. states and Canadian provinces as well as elsewhere throughout the world.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:21:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/793440</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HOW MUCH TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE DOES RURAL AMERICA NEED?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/647832</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Rural America (RA) has been the beneficiary of large investments in freight and passenger surface transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately, this infrastructure is becoming out-of-date due to the technological changes occurring in transportation and other industries, and is showing the effects of time. RA needs further investments in the transportation infrastructure in order to move the large quantities of heavy products it produces long distances to market and because of the geographic dispersion of the rural population. Parsimonious funding for the rehabilitation of the rural infrastructure means that future sources of funding will have to be found. Reduced state allocations to the local rural road system suggest that agriculture and other rural sectors will face the dilemma of increased property taxes to fund the maintenance and reconstruction of the existing local rural road system or face a reduction in the miles of road. Agriculture must also be concerned about the deterioration of the aging inland waterway system, especially since federal funding of new construction must be matched by waterway user taxes. Moreover, the railroad industry still has 41% of its trackage still hauling only 1% of the total net ton miles. This suggests further rail abandonment as these tracks need rehabilitation. Technological and structural change in agriculture and transportation have made some rural transportation infrastructure investments less than beneficial to agriculture and RA. The 21st century will witness the emergence of an economic environment that will require agriculture and other rural interests to decide which transportation infrastructure investments to support and which investments they can, after all, do without.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/647832</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FINANCING THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY SYSTEM: COST ALLOCATION AND RECOVERY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/83158</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Development and maintenance of the Federal airport and airway system are authorized by the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 (as amended through 1976). Elements of existing legislation will expire in 1980. The purpose of this report is to analyze airport and airway system finances as a guide for developing post-1980 development and financial programs. Estimates are provided of 1978 and 1987 airport and airway system costs. System costs are allocated to users under two alternative procedures providing a range of cost responsibility. Aviation tax revenues are projected for 1978 and 1987 and are compared with allocated user costs. Several changes in aviation user taxes are evaluated as methods of aligning future airport and airway tax contributions with cost responsibility. (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 1979 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/83158</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>