<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>Addressing Liability Issues of Proactive Safety Improvements</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2701282</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report examines the legal considerations facing transportation agencies that adopt proactive, data-driven approaches to roadway safety. The research analyzes how predictive safety methods, used to identify roadway features and locations associated with elevated crash risk, may intersect with tort liability concerns. The findings are intended to assist state departments of transportation in understanding legal risks, available defenses, and strategies to manage liability while advancing safety objectives. The digest will be of particular interest to agency counsel, risk managers, and senior transportation officials. Transportation agencies increasingly rely on proactive safety analysis to inform roadway design and improvement decisions before crashes occur. However, uncertainty regarding the potential use of proactive safety methodologies, manuals, and guidance in tort litigation has raised concerns about increased exposure to liability. Although federal law limits the admissibility of certain safety data and studies, those protections do not clearly extend to safety manuals or predictive analytical tools. Research was needed to assess whether and how tort liability concerns may affect the adoption of proactive safety approaches. Under NCHRP Project 20-06/Topic 27-05, the Fine Points, Ltd. research team was asked to examine the legal landscape surrounding proactive safety improvements. This study reviews relevant statutes, case law, and agency practices; identifies litigation in which proactive safety concepts have been raised; evaluates defenses and outcomes; and documents strategies used by transportation agencies to mitigate liability concerns. Based on this analysis, the research explores potential legal, administrative, and policy approaches that may support the use of proactive safety methods while preserving established processes for prioritizing and funding roadway improvements.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 12:15:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2701282</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Effects of American Indian Treaties on Development and Operation of Transportation Facilities</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2481844</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Recently, the State of Washington was required to redesign the culverts beneath its roads to facilitate the passage of salmon. This mandate arose from the interpretation of treaties with American Indian tribes dating back to the 1850s, which predated Washington’s admission to the United States. These treaties specifically address fishing rights. A proceeding in the ongoing case of United States v. Washington affirmed these rights, leading to the recognition that the state must update its transportation infrastructure to ensure the protection of salmon habitats. The significance of tribal treaty rights is now increasingly influencing local and state planning and regulatory bodies, particularly in their decisions regarding the construction and operation of transportation facilities. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the fact that American Indian treaties established before statehood—and never abrogated by Congress—remain in effect. In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Court ruled that a Native American accused of crimes committed within the boundaries of a reservation established prior to Oklahoma’s statehood could not be tried in state court because, pursuant to a treaty with the Muscogee Nation, the State of Oklahoma remained, for relevant purposes, “Indian country” subject to federal jurisdiction. This decision underscores the necessity for states to reassess the ongoing relevance of treaties enacted before they achieved statehood. This NCHRP Legal Research Digest examines how state departments of transportation (DOTs) plan, develop, and operate transportation infrastructure that crosses lands reserved by treaty. Key considerations include: Ongoing validity of treaties; Impact on modern development; and Engagement with tribal stakeholders. This digest will be valuable to transportation attorneys representing state DOTs and authorities, as well as their contractors and consultants. It will also benefit policymakers, local, state, and federal personnel, transportation practitioners, decision-makers, and stakeholders involved in ensuring that transportation projects comply with legal and cultural obligations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2024 16:15:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2481844</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Pandemics and Contractual Issues</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2440277</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This digest addresses the legal impacts that transportation agencies can expect to have as a result of an unusual occurrence when the nature of the occurrence (e.g., a pandemic) is not explicitly identified in contractual force majeure provisions, and the sufficiency or reasonableness of consequences for noncompliance with contract performance levels and with risk transfers. This digest focuses on typical force majeure provisions and conditions in transportation construction, maintenance, or toll road operation contracts. It also addresses the legal aspects of government-mandated and imposed quarantine and business disruptions caused by the 2020-21 COVID-19 pandemic. The digest provides a review of: Applicable force majeure clauses and the key criteria and circumstances weighed in favor of the conclusion that force majeure applies; How performance, time of completion, and financial provisions in the contracts affected the transportation agency and the contractor; The defenses or remedies a transportation agency could assert to counter the claim of force majeure legal arguments to make in support of the declaration of force majeure; and How the cost of shortfalls is allocated to each side without the force majeure clause. This digest will be helpful to all involved in the legal obligations of parties to contracts concerning force majeure impacted by pandemics and other unanticipated occurrences, including attorneys representing transportation departments and authorities, their contractors and consultants, policymakers, local, state, and federal personnel, transportation practitioners, decision-makers, and stakeholders.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:39:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2440277</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Resolving Construction Disputes: Review of State DOT Processes</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2422617</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes, such as mediation, dispute review boards, and arbitration, are tools that save time and money in resolving disputes concerning the construction of transportation projects. However, given the nature of these processes, their results on transportation projects are generally not accessible or found in a central location. This legal research digest (digest) provides a thorough review of the various dispute resolution processes used by state departments of transportation (DOTs) and the outcomes of those processes. This digest examines: State statutes and regulations that govern the resolution of disputes; Processes state DOTs are using for the resolution of construction disputes; and Rules used for the different ADR processes (e.g., timing, makeup, administration of panels, enforcement of contract clauses) and how the rules affect the outcome of disputes. Also, this digest provides an in-depth analysis of the use of arbitration among those DOTs that have used this binding dispute process. The analysis includes (1) contract provisions that arbitrators are regularly asked to enforce; (2) sample fact patterns; (3) levels of proof required to prove damages; and (4) differences in the levels of discovery conducted in arbitration versus proceedings in court. This digest would be helpful to all persons involved in transportation construction dispute resolutions, specifically administrators, attorneys, program officers, contracting officers, and risk managers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2024 16:21:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2422617</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Multistate Coordination and Harmonization for AV Legislation</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2394466</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Over two-thirds of states in the United States have enacted automated vehicle (AV) legislation, an executive order regarding AVs, or both. AV laws and regulations may differ for licensing, registration, operator requirements, equipment, insurance, and platooning, among others. A consistent deployment framework for AV technology and AV regulations among state, local, and tribal territories is necessary so AVs can operate seamlessly. This legal research digest provides guidance for multistate coordination and harmonization for AV legislation for Levels 3 through 5 vehicles. It presents the legal issues and barriers to national harmonization of state AV laws. This digest addresses the federal government’s role in AV legislation concerning deployment, the operation of a vehicle on public roads by members of the public who are not employees, contractors, or designees of a manufacturer or other testing entity. It identifies areas of exclusive jurisdiction and shared jurisdiction among federal agencies and states. The digest provides a review of AV legislation in all states and the District of Columbia and describes the differences among stations in the following research areas: registration; vehicle licensing; licensing of operators and operator education/training requirements; vehicle inspection requirements; liability insurance for owners and operators; traffic laws unique to AV and those that should not apply to AV, including distinctions between personal use, commercial freight use, and public transit; tort liability-personal injury and product liability; law enforcement, including accident reporting and investigation; cybersecurity; and privacy of collected vehicle data. This digest will be helpful to all involved in the deployment and management of AVs, including attorneys, policymakers, local, state, and federal personnel, transportation practitioners, decision-makers, and stakeholders.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2024 11:49:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2394466</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Best Value Procurement for Highway Construction: Legal Issues and Strategies</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2217108</link>
      <description><![CDATA[State departments of transportation have introduced enabling legislation, rulemaking, policy, and implementation guidelines allowing for the greater use of best value procurement in conjunction with alternative contracting methods, including design-build, construction manager/general contractor, and public-private partnerships, for highway construction projects. Best value incorporates factors in the selection process, in addition to price, to better ensure that an offeror will provide the greatest overall value to the agency at optimal performance. This legal research digest addresses the best value procurement systems used for highway projects and notes the flexibility regarding selection criteria, rating systems, and award algorithms. It also presents a definition of best value procurement; describes the best value procurement process, best value procurement approach, and steps for implementation; and includes an analysis of the existing federal, state, and local legislation focused on best value procurement. A compilation of relevant bid protests, the affected competition level, increased procurement cost, and other procurement or project execution issues is offered. This digest will be helpful to attorneys, procurement officers, planners, engineers, agency financial officials, administrators, and staff involved in the agency procurement process.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:27:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2217108</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Planning and Environment Linkages: Review of Statutory Authority and Case Law</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2110696</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This digest presents the key legal bases and aspects of the Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL) program. It covers the evolution of PEL, highlighting key statutory and regulatory authorities for PEL and corresponding agency guidance and policy. This digest includes a description and comparison of the various approaches to PEL at the federal and state levels. It also analyzes the history of litigation relevant to PEL. Finally, this digest summarizes key considerations for PEL going forward. This digest will be helpful to all involved in the development, construction, and planning of transportation projects, including attorneys, planners, state transportation agencies, metropolitan regional planning organizations, federal personnel, consultants, and contractors.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2023 18:02:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2110696</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Consequential Damages Provisions in Construction Contracts: Legal Issues</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2085665</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Public entities negotiating transportation construction contracts must strike the right balance between protecting the public from risk and affording counterparties the flexibility necessary to complete projects. Few contractual provisions exemplify this tension more than those dealing with consequential damages do. The public nature and cost of transportation construction projects creates a risk of large consequential damages awards, which has led to a proliferation of different contractual clauses and strategies to mitigate this risk. This legal research digest explores the issues associated with consequential damages provisions in construction contracts, and it provides guidance to those drafting such contracts. The digest specifically discusses:  How and what kind of consequential damages are and are not awarded in transportation contract disputes; Potential risk to the parties to public transportation contracts of large consequential damages awards; Use of consequential damages provisions in industry practice and model forms to limit exposure to consequential damages risks; Federal, state, and common law rules bearing on consequential damages in the public transportation contracting context; Guidance on drafting consequential damages provisions; Examples of consequential damages provisions in state department of transportation contracts; and Trends in consequential damages provisions. This legal digest includes a checklist to help contracting officials, attorneys, procurement officers, planners, engineers, agency financial officials, administrators, and staff involved in the construction process navigate the risks associated with consequential damages in public transportation contracts.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2022 10:07:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2085665</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Encampments of Unhoused Individuals in Transportation Rights-of-Way: Laws and State DOT Practices</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2037228</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This digest documents the laws, statutes, cases, procedures, policies, and other resources governing or addressing (1) a transportation agency’s prevention or removal of unsheltered encampments from transportation rights-of-way; (2) the authorized use of transportation rights-of-way for shelters for unhoused individuals and social services to assist transportation agencies in addressing safety, health, and public welfare issues; and (3) the ability of transportation agencies to control their rights-of-way. Also, this digest includes a comprehensive overview of the types of legal claims against transportation agencies that involve prevention or removal of encampments from transportation rights-of-way, and the use of transportation rights-of-way for authorized shelters. The digest will be useful to transportation lawyers, engineers, planners, state and federal civil rights transportation officers, private civil rights attorneys, civil rights groups, administrators, and researchers of civil rights in transportation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2022 16:35:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2037228</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Managing Enhanced Risk in the Mega Project Era</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2015248</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Mitigating and controlling risks is necessary for ensuring the successful construction of highway mega projects. This legal digest addresses the change in risk profiles of larger transportation projects in terms of size, project delivery methods, and legislation. It examines the manner in which standard contract provisions must be modified to allocate risks, in accordance with the enhanced scope of the project. This is presented through example excerpts of contract provisions used on mega projects. The digest is categorized following the construction project phases, starting from planning to pre-award, and then to post award. The planning stage includes risks related to government approvals, environmental requirements, funding, hazardous materials management, and agreements with third parties (including rights-of-way, utilities, and railroad agreements). The pre-award stage includes risks related to procurement and selection procedures, insurance, bonding, and warranty requirements, contract payment, and incentive/disincentive terms. The final post award stage includes risks related to design defects, types of damages, provisions limiting damages, changes (including differing site conditions, force majeure events, changes in law, discovery of archaeological, paleontological, or cultural resources, and discovery of threatened and endangered species), dispute resolution provisions, suspensions and terminations, and finally, operations and maintenance. This digest updates earlier digests and other literature on risk management strategies. This digest will be helpful to all involved in the development, construction, and management of mega projects, including engineers, insurance providers, attorneys, state and federal personnel, consultants, contractors, and students.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Sep 2022 17:23:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2015248</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Public Liabilities Relating to Driveway Permits</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1930536</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Transportation agencies across the country may face legal challenges from property owners when design or permit changes cause safety concerns or obstruct access to private driveways in the public right-of-way. Agencies need better information to predict when takings compensation will be required or when permit approval, denial, or changes put them at risk of tort or due process liability. This digest evaluated the circumstances under which transportation agencies are held liable by property owners for the regulatory function of permitted and unpermitted driveways. Case and statutory review revealed some helpful practices. In addition, this digest identifies trends that can assist agencies in predicting and limiting liability. A state’s case law definition of “interference with an access right” has a substantial impact on predicting takings’ liability, and the definition is not limited to precedential case law. This digest includes an historical review of constitutional amendments and statutory codification of access management authority which provide evidence that these definitions change over time and can continue to change as the world becomes more urban and transportation systems advance. Statutory and policy changes governing the access permit process can provide legal flexibility in managing access. The composition of the access permit can have a similar result. Statutory exemptions from waivers of sovereign immunity can provide protection from tort claims as well. Transportation agency attorneys and staff, legislators, and state transportation administrators should find this digest beneficial and informative.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:12:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1930536</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Guidelines for Drafting Liability Neutral Transportation Engineering Documents and Communication Strategies</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1726013</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In the legal system, transportation engineering documents drafted by the transportation industry include manuals, studies, research documents, memoranda, and email. These documents are frequently used by litigants and courts as evidence bearing on the standard of care or duties for transportation agencies sued for alleged negligence in operation of transportation facilities. The documents often use language and phrases such as “hazardous” and “high risk” that have pejorative meanings in the legal system as opposed to more neutral and objective language. Non-neutral language can increase the potential  for transportation agencies  to be determined to be liable for damages.  This digest presents legal language style and a drafting guide. The digest also addresses how to avoid concepts and language that can have legal implications by promoting clear, direct, objective, and fact-based expression.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2020 15:26:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1726013</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Issues Concerning the Use of Transportation Facilities to Generate Revenue for State DOTs</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1716514</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Federal regulations have historically discouraged limited access facilities from utility installations. In 1988, these regulations were amended to permit state departments of transportation (DOTs) to allow utility installations as a means of avoiding unreasonably costly or difficult utility installations, and adverse impacts on productive agricultural land. Such regulations give the states broad discretion in determining whether or which utilities can occupy their limited access facilities. Moreover, these federal regulations require states to recover fair market value for such use, or some smaller amount based upon the state DOT’s public interest determination under its own state law. Additionally, many states are prohibited from providing uncompensated private access to public property.  Utility companies are seeking to locate communications facilities and evolving wireless communication technology and its infrastructure in state right-of-way. This digest summarizes and provides a legal analysis of the legal issues related to a state DOT’s obligation to provide access to the state right-of-way for communication utilities, and a DOT’s options to generate revenue from such access.  Topics addressed include:  1) the statutory and regulatory authority of each state for allowing access to state right-of-way for private utilities and the state’s ability to generate revenue from the access; 2) the impact of various types of right-of-way (e.g., limited access, acquired via condemnation, and federally funded) on a DOT’s ability to assess reasonable rates for the access; 3) the practices, procedures, and policies of states for requests by private utilities for access to the right-of-way; 4) he practices by states and tolling authorities for the assessment of fair market value or other amount for such access based on public interest determinations; 5) the presence or lack of premiums in the assessments of state DOTs and tolling authorities for fair market value for access to a contiguous longitudinal property, including recommendations for capturing utility owner profits; and 6) the potential legal obstacles to such property assessments, including any distinctions based on regulatory status of a utility as a public utility with condemnation authority, and any potential impact of the equal access provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  This digest will be useful to technology engineers and contractors, transportation lawyers, state and local legislators, and representatives of transportation agencies.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:51:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1716514</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Potential Liability Associated with Unstable Slope Management Programs</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1714536</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Slope failures pose serious risks for state transportation agencies and federal agencies that own or maintain roads, highways, and/or adjacent property. These entities may be subject to liability for unstable slope related incidents involving administrative and judicial claims for personal and property damage. Many transportation agencies have adopted unstable slope management programs and standards as part of a larger effort to provide an efficient and effective methodology to prevent or control landslides or rockfalls. These programs typically use a ranking or rating scale to help determine which slopes should receive preventive or corrective maintenance.  This digest provides a detailed description of several specific unstable slope management programs, including the type of data collected and rating systems that are utilized. The digest presents an analysis of governmental immunity and discretionary waivers of immunity and the application of such to transportation activities and employees, especially in the context of highway slope failures. Pertinent cases are analyzed, with special attention given to expert testimony elicited to support or defend a claim.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2020 13:08:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1714536</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Buy America Requirements for Federal Highway Projects</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1704033</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Buy America provision, often called the “Buy America Act,” requires federally funded highway projects to use only steel, iron, and manufactured products produced in the United States. However, FHWA has a longstanding general waiver for manufactured products other than steel or iron, allowing such manufactured products to be used on federally funded highway projects.  Issues have arisen in recent years regarding how to apply the FHWA Buy America requirements to: (1) manufactured products with steel and iron components; (2) vehicle and boat purchases; (3) utility relocations; and (4) FHWA-funded projects where some segments are funded by agencies other than FHWA, since state agencies are also subject to state Buy America laws.  This digest summarizes the intent and application of the FHWA Buy America provision. It also summarizes the procedure that FHWA has implemented for granting waivers and the impact that court interpretation of such waivers has had on the industry in such cases as United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union v. Federal Highway Administration. The digest also includes a discussion of the relationship between the FHWA Buy America provision and other Buy America laws, and the digest addresses enforcement of the FHWA Buy America provision and penalties for its violation]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 11:07:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1704033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>