<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>TRB Publications Index</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/</link><atom:link href="http://pubsindex.trb.org/common/TRIS Suite/feeds/rss.aspx?tc=NN%3ACfaf%2A" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><description></description><language>en-us</language><copyright>Copyright © 2015. 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>Interdependence of Federal, State, and Local Transportation Funding and Ownership</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2701281</link><description><![CDATA[This report presents a guide to help state departments of transportation (DOTs) navigate funding and financing interdependence. The guide outlines how these interdependences work, strategies to manage them, and the outcomes of the interdependences. It was developed based on extensive review of the state of the practice, engagement of the community of practice, and use cases. The information in the guide will be of immediate interest to policymakers and funding decision-makers. The findings will serve as a valuable resource for state DOTs and other public transportation agencies.]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 12:15:36 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2701281</guid></item><item><title>Coordination of Highway Safety Improvement Program and Highway Safety Office Activities</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2694541</link><description><![CDATA[This report presents the state of practice of state departments of transportation (DOTs) on how they organize, manage, and align their Highway Safety Improvement Programs (HSIPs) and Highway Safety Offices (HSOs). The synthesis includes information on how state DOTs coordinate these functions through shared planning, data exchange, performance measures, and reporting processes. The synthesis also documents coordination practices related to funding, safety program implementation, public participation and engagement efforts, and the use of data tools and dashboards. Under NCHRP Project 20-05/Topic 56-19, “Practices on Coordination of HSIP and Highway Safety Office Activities,” the University of Missouri was asked to synthesize information to document current practices, challenges, and opportunities for improving coordination between HSIP and HSO management, practices, and associated funding. Information used in this study was attained through a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, and interviews to develop in-depth case examples. Chapter 4 provides six case examples that highlight how the interviewed state DOTs coordinate HSIP and HSO activities through shared performance measures, safety planning, crash data management, funding practices, and organizational structures, as well as challenges related to staffing, communication, and administrative processes.]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2026 17:37:52 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2694541</guid></item><item><title>Funding for Maintenance of Complete Streets: A Synthesis of Highway Practice</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2674678</link><description><![CDATA[As state departments of transportation (DOTs) expand active transportation infrastructure through Complete Streets programs, new challenges have emerged in maintaining these facilities. Roadway maintenance equipment is often incompatible with bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and additional funding for dedicated maintenance is limited. This synthesis examines how state DOTs manage the maintenance and funding of Complete Streets projects. The report explores maintenance policies and operations for active transportation facilities; cost-sharing approaches and funding models involving local governments and other partners; the role of local and tribal governments in maintenance agreements; and strategies for training, staffing, and equipment procurement to support Complete Streets maintenance. Contents include: (1) objectives, scope, and methodology; (2) literature review of Complete Streets policies and maintenance provisions; (3) summary of survey responses and current maintenance practices across state DOTS; (4) case examples of Complete Streets maintenance practices and challenges from five state DOTs; and (5) summary of key findings and recommendations for future research.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:15:16 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2674678</guid></item><item><title>Investigation of Tools and Technology for Roadside Vegetation Asset Management</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2637517</link><description><![CDATA[This report presents an investigation of the tools and technology for Roadside Vegetation Asset Management (RVAM) in four chapters. Chapter one defines and describes RVAM and details the study’s objectives and scope. This chapter contains an overview of RVAM, and discusses research conducted on RVAM funding issues, funding sources, and associated budgetary constraints; the use of structural and vegetative assets; and barriers to implementing new technology. Finally, chapter one touches on the benefits of RVAM that will be explained in the report. Chapter two reviews the research approach for the literature review, nationwide surveys, case studies, guidebook work plan, Interim Report, Technical Memorandum, and final project deliverables. Chapter three provides an overview of the results and subsequent recommendations from the literature review, nationwide surveys, and case studies. The literature review identified both commonly available and new and evolving technology for state department of transportation (DOT) use. This chapter covers funding sources and opportunities available at the time of the writing of this report. Finally, chapter three lists results from the nationwide surveys and a short comparison of the five case studies showcasing similarities and differences between state DOTs that were identified during the project. Chapter four outlines suggestions for state DOTs to improve their RVAM practices based on the findings of the project including tools and technology implementation, terminology usage and consistency, asset condition rating systems, staffing and funding opportunities, and public outreach. This chapter also provides research recommendations to the Transportation Research Board (TRB) for possible future research projects, the formation of a subcommittee, and an RVAM transportation pooled fund research study.]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:59:49 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2637517</guid></item><item><title>Revenue-Cost Analysis for Roadway Assets in Texas</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2630577</link><description><![CDATA[Roadway assets, such as pavements and bridges, are essential for economic activity and growth, facilitating the movement of goods and people. In Texas, U.S., transportation funding primarily comes from the State Highway Fund, which includes various taxes and fees. However, traditional funding sources are insufficient to meet the state’s growing transportation needs. This study analyzes the impact of commercial and oversize/overweight trucks on roadway assets, assigning monetary values to structural life consumption and comparing them with state highway agency revenues. The study findings reveal significant funding gaps because of higher consumption costs from these vehicles. Four recovery scenarios were proposed: 1) adjusting vehicle registration fees, 2) implementing weight-distance fees, 3) revising truck permit fees, and 4) introducing mileage-based fees. These scenarios resulted in roughly $300 million additional revenue, addressing the deficit identified from the roadway assets’ expenses and promoting a more equitable distribution of costs among users. The study highlights the inadequacies of current overweight fee structure and road users charge mechanisms, and provides a framework for policymakers to develop equitable and efficient alternative funding strategies, ensuring users pay proportionately to their impact on the roadways.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:23:39 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2630577</guid></item><item><title>Ports, Waterways, Intermodal Terminals, and International Trade Transportation Issues</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2611545</link><description><![CDATA[This article discusses the presentations made at the  Transportation Research Board (TRB) Conference on Ports, Waterways, Intermodal Terminals, and International Trade Transportation Issues, held in Norfolk, Virginia. Topics discussed include the following: Structural, Financial, and Policy Aspects of International Trade; Intermodal Freight Terminals; Port Technology and Innovation; Virginia Export Trading Company; and Planning and Economics of Inland and Coastal Waterways.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2025 10:05:48 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2611545</guid></item><item><title>Review of Mileage-Based User Fees for Sustainable Transportation Funding: Challenges, Opportunities, and Research Gaps</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2600585</link><description><![CDATA[Decarbonization trends in the transportation sector through vehicle electrification, combined with the declining efficacy of the fuel tax, have necessitated sustainable transportation Funding solutions. One such solution is the mileage-based user fee (MBUF) or the vehicle miles traveled fee, which charges drivers based on distance traveled. Over the past decade, pilot programs and research reports have evaluated MBUF’s feasibility and benefits from diverse viewpoints. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the existing literature on MBUF, focusing on modeling and methodological aspects, incorporating empirical findings from technical reports and pilot programs, and comparing MBUF with other road pricing methods, particularly administrative costs, technological requirements, and interoperability across state boundaries and fee structures. Key areas of investigation include system-level impacts (such as revenue potential and rate setting) and individual-level impacts (such as equity and privacy). Equity considerations are further analyzed; that is, social (income- and demographic-based), geographic (rural versus urban), and modal equity. The review highlights the limited research on the long-term equity impacts of MBUF and the critical need to understand behavioral impacts under the evolving policy landscape. The challenges, opportunities, and research gaps associated with MBUF are discussed, emphasizing the need for data-driven behavioral models and a systematic approach to transportation Funding.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 15:11:57 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2600585</guid></item><item><title>Stormwater Retrofit Programs and Practices Through Third-Party Partnerships</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2562307</link><description><![CDATA[Due to the lack of stormwater control facilities on many existing highways, some state departments of transportation (DOTs) are required to retrofit the stormwater system with improved flow control and treatment facilities to comply with regulatory requirements. The main drivers of the retrofit program include stormwater permits from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, state water quality/stormwater regulations, consultation from the Endangered Species Act, and prescribed total maximum daily load actions. As stormwater runoff quality and quantity are increasingly being addressed, state DOTs are seeking information on effective watershed-based strategies. To comply with regulatory requirements in a more cost-effective manner, some DOTs have partnered with third parties or are considering doing so. However, because of a lack of guidelines, state DOTs are devising diverse mechanisms to implement these partnerships. The objective of this synthesis is to document practices used by state DOTs regarding stormwater retrofit partnerships with third parties. Information for this study was gathered through a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, and follow-up interviews with selected DOTs. Case examples of four state DOTs provide additional information on the practices related to LiDAR data collection, management, and use.]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2025 12:32:19 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2562307</guid></item><item><title>The Future of Commuter Rail in North America</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2554113</link><description><![CDATA[As the COVID‐19 pandemic upended traditional travel markets, speculation swirled about what work‐from‐home patterns would mean for commuter rail agencies, their services, and the funding structure that supported them. For decades, commuter rail providers across North America offered a service that was often faster than driving and cheaper than parking for many downtown office commuters. But in 2020 ridership on all public transportation services hit record lows followed by slow recovery, with most still significantly below their 2019 levels. Remote and hybrid work arrangements have reduced the downtown commuter market, which now represents a lower share of total regional travel. Providers will need to broaden their focus from the downtown commuter market to restore commuter rail’s ridership and relevancy in regional transportation systems.   Evidence indicates that a new travel pattern has emerged in North America’s metropolitan regions. Work‐from‐home among office workers is entrenched, demand for off‐peak and leisure travel has increased, and downtown office buildings are unlikely to attract the same quantity of daily workers that drove their initial investment. Where there remains strong demand for downtown commutes, it is limited to Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, offering a challenging dynamic for capital intensive transportation services. How commuter rail providers justify their investments remains uncertain and will be dependent on local travel markets that vary by time of day and day of week. This report explores these issues, examining how commuter railroads might navigate the market, service, and funding challenges they face in the coming years and decades. The research identifies implementable and practical strategies for commuter rail services in North America to facilitate recovery from the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic and to transform its role and relevance in regional mobility.]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 18 May 2025 17:55:45 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2554113</guid></item><item><title>Urban Rail Transit Fare Reconciliation Method Using Multi-Source Data</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2516929</link><description><![CDATA[Revenue reconciliation is an important problem in allocating the fare revenues to different lines and operators in urban rail transit systems. This paper proposes a data-driven fusion method for fare reconciliation in public transport using mobile signal, smart card, and train operation data. It makes the best use of the complementary advantages of two of these data sources in inferring the passenger travel paths within the metro system (mobile signal data) and journey time distributions of origin–destination (OD) pairs (smart card data). We propose a nonlinear programming optimization model to adjust the inferred path fractions from mobile data by minimizing the theoretically derived and truly observed OD journey time distributions. Case studies using both synthetic data and real-world data to validate the model performance for the metro system in Nanjing, China. The results show that the proposed information fusion model can well approximate the true path fractions and the observed OD journey time distributions. The model is robust against the biased model inputs, such as the priori path journey time distribution, with a relative path fraction estimation error of 3% for the biased standard deviation level up to 30%. In addition, the model performs consistently better than the current fare reconciliation practices using mobile signal data in estimating OD path fractions.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 12:22:37 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2516929</guid></item><item><title>No Boundaries: A Pooled Fund for Sharing Transportation Innovations</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2446995</link><description><![CDATA[No Boundaries is a multistate consortium that highlights and shares tested solutions created by transportation maintenance workers. The authors describe how these innovations are made available through peer exchange opportunities, an innovation database, and information sharing aimed at reusing—instead of reinventing—solutions to common problems throughout the nation.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:51:54 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2446995</guid></item><item><title>State of the Art Transportation Noise Barriers</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2431656</link><description><![CDATA[This article contains a state of the art study of transportation noise barriers by the assistant program director of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. He reviews these areas of interest: recent reports on noise and noise barrier research; planning for noise control; noise control measures; when and where barriers are needed; kinds of barriers; criteria for planning and design; paying for noise barriers; objections to barriers; noise barrier theory; design procedures; barrier costs; and noise barrier construction examples.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2024 11:43:44 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2431656</guid></item><item><title>Electric Vehicles: Powering Up in Rural America</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2381899</link><description><![CDATA[Rural residents drive greater distances and spend more on fuel and vehicle maintenance than their urban counterparts. Electric vehicles (EVs) could help reduce those disparities, but federal and state programs to build charging infrastructure along America’s major highways risk bypassing remote communities, where such facilities remain few and far between. Two major federal programs are driving investment in EVs nationwide: (1) the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program, which provides nearly $5 billion to states, requires that initial EV charging stations be located along sections of interstate or other major U.S. highways designated as Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Alternative Fuel Corridors (AFCs); and (2) FHWA’s Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) discretionary grant program, which provides nearly $2.5 billion for deployment of publicly accessible EV charging and alternative fueling infrastructure in urban and rural communities and along AFCs. When the location of AFCs are examined by state, gaps in coverage become apparent. Oregon, for example, shows little to no charging capacity for its two largest tribal communities, much of the state’s federal lands, or the gateway communities that abut them. For transportation researchers and practitioners, the following primary policy issues merit attention: (1) covering gaps in the NEVI AFCs through rural areas, (2) providing reliable access to rural public lands, and (3) ensuring equitable access to EV charging infrastructure.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2024 09:28:54 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2381899</guid></item><item><title>Consensus Study Report: Investing in Equitable and Resilient Infrastructure</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2381898</link><description><![CDATA[Extreme weather events and other natural disasters often exact a disproportionate toll on marginalized communities. A consensus study, from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, explores research strategies to ensure that infrastructure investments help promote equitable decision making, along with resilience. The study, Equitable and Resilient Infrastructure Investments, was based on a workshop organized by the Committee on Applied Research Topics for Hazard Mitigation and Resilience. The workshop examined three topics: partnerships for equitable infrastructure development, systemic change toward resilient and equitable infrastructure investment, and innovations in finance and financial analysis. This article discusses: the collaborative development, design, and operation of community resilience hubs; research questions pertaining to the interdependence of the built and natural environments as they relate to equitable and resilient infrastructure investments; research questions involving innovative financing for equitable infrastructure development; and research questions pertaining to benefit–cost analysis for resilient and equitable infrastructure development.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2024 09:28:54 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2381898</guid></item><item><title>The Future of Airport Finance</title><link>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2337429</link><description><![CDATA[“The Future of Airport Finance” [ACRP Project 11-08(21-01)], held March 23–24, 2023, at the Keck Center of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Washington, DC, convened airport practitioners, consultants, policymakers, and financial sector experts to consider important topics for airport financial professionals and upcoming trends likely to have an impact on airport funding and finance in the near to mid future. The Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) organized the Insight Event as part of its series of convening activities titled “ACRP Insight Events.” Several key themes emerged throughout the course of the event and were discussed across multiple panels and in the discussion breakout session: 1. Managing in an uncertain environment; 2. Enhancing revenue generation; 3. Developing innovative business models; 4. Funding capital programs; 5. Implementing cost- and time-saving strategies; 6. Addressing airport workforce and organizational challenges; and 7. Advancing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals. The research ideas raised by event participants and summarized at the end of this report are categorized by these seven themes.]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2024 17:28:54 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://pubsindex.trb.org/view/2337429</guid></item></channel></rss>