– I need 5 pages research paper about transportation funding in San Diego, California, US

– Please follow the instruction I attached carefully

– I also attached 2 samples that you can use as references

– University level

– Please 100% No Plagiarism

1

California’s Transportation Funding

Introduction

California’s transportation funding is multifaceted. By definition, transportation

funding refers to the outlays that the government pays for providing a safe and efficient

transportation system. The funds are used to create a system that ultimately assists people in

commuting between workplaces and residences. In California, transportation funding is

derived from the local, state, and federal governments. Various fees, such as fuel taxes and

vehicle weight charges are also used to fund transportation within the state. The revenue

collected from these sources is channelled towards vehicle regulation, transit operations, and

highway maintenance. State funds are channelled to various projects subject to certain

frameworks outlined in state law. This study explores how the state of California is using its

funding for transportation.

Discussion

Transportation funding in California comes from a wide range of federal, local, and state

sources. State funding for transportation is sourced from a number of state transportation fees

and taxes. They include fees levied on vehicle weight, diesel excise and sales taxes, as well

as, gasoline taxes (LAO Report). California’s transportation budget for 2019-2020 is $23.5

billion for all fund sources for the state’s transportation programs and departments. Major

sources of state funding are vehicle taxes and state fuel. Transit fares sales taxes combined

with country and city general funds contribute to the largest percentage of local funding. As

for federal funding, federal tax fuels are the main source of transportation revenue. Over the

past two years, state funding has increased by approximately three-quarters owing to the

recent enactment of Senate Bill 1 in 2017. The new legislation has increased several fees to

raise around $5.1 billion in transportation revenues yearly. Almost all of the new revenue has

2

been channelled towards deferred maintenance on state highways and local roads and streets.

Also, the funding is meant to improve trade transit and corridors in California State

Funding for mass transportation, roads, and highways in 2018-19 comes from federal,

local, and state sources and is estimated at $35 billion (Comprehensive Annual Financial

Report). As previously mentioned, 34% is derived from state sources’ vehicle fees and fuel

taxes. In the financial year 2018-2019, transportation funding for motor vehicle regulation is

estimated to total $10.68 billion. The largest percentage goes to Local Government and

stands at 37.2%. The funding mainly supports the operation of state agencies. 21.6% and

11.3%, and 24.9% are channelled to California Highway Patrol (CHP) and California

Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and State Highways (Caltrans), respectively.

States in the US impose gas taxes in several ways; for example, per-gallon excise

taxes paid at the pump. Excise taxes levied on wholesalers are then transferred to end-users

through increased prices. In return, the gasoline tax is used to build and maintain roads;

hence, the tax imposed on gasoline is called a user fee. The fee is a means of forcing drivers

to compensate for the wear and tear they impose on public roads. The more miles drivers

cover, the more gasoline is burnt, and the more tax revenue is generated. California also

collects revenue from taxes on diesel fuel. According to the LAO Report, diesel excise tax in

California currently goes for 67 cents per gallon. Six cents of this tax is used to fund the

maintenance and development of local roads and highways in California State. The rest of the

revenue is deposited is used to fund various programs that deal with road maintenance and

development.

Vehicles operating on major highways in California while carrying heavy loads are

required by legislation to pay registration fees. Weight fees inject about $1 billion annually to

the state (LAO Report). Previously, vehicle weight fees were used to settle a portion of the

debt service costs on transportation bonds. This has recently changed as the vehicle weight

3

fees have been redirected to maintaining and repairing highways and streets. The need arose

following a series of periodic assessment analysis of local roads and streets carried out by the

California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities. Their latest

findings indicated that the pavement condition of the local transportation network is wanting

and will be in a failed condition by 2022 if not addressed. The report also revealed that

California’s local governments are short around $8 billion a year for the next decade to

maintain the local road system. Similarly, the California Transportation Commission’s

statewide transportation needs assessment indicates that every year, California is short several

billion dollars needed to rehabilitate and maintain the state highway system. Although the $1

billion additional revenue from vehicle fees is clearly far short of the needs, it can provide

some relief to the state’s transportation system without raising taxes.

As previously mentioned, local sources also contribute to transportation funding.

Examples of the local sources are country and city general funds, county transit fares. Also,

revenues generated from sales tax are under the same category. California has implemented a

local option sales tax (LOSTs) to fund transportation infrastructure. As of 2018, 24 counties,

that houses 88 percent of California’s population, have adopted LOST practices (LAO

Report). These practices have been shown to produce considerable income for the expansion,

operation, as well as maintenance of transportation services and facilities. Sales tax revenues

used for transportation funding in California produces over $4 billion annually.

California LOST expenditure plans are multifaceted in certain aspects, reflecting

each of the state’s unique transportation needs. Many LOST measures allocate the largest

portion of funding on transit and road projects and transit projects. Part of the sales tax is

used to fund the Mid-Coast Trolley mega estimated at $2,112.11 million through 2048

(Federal Transit Administration). The Mid-Coast Trolley is an 11-mile extension to the

current San Diego Trolley system. Major destinations will be served by the medium-high

4

system, including University Towne Centre, UC San Diego, and VA Medical Center. The

highest priority transportation project is needed in San Diego region to provide an efficient

and reliable transit service. As planned, the Mid-Coast Trolley project is expected to connect

corridor residents, students, employees, and businesses in San Diego locality, thereby

mitigating traffic congestion issues.

Passenger fares also contribute to transportation funding. A farebox recovery rate, for

example, is used by transit agencies to indicate the number of operating revenues (Levinson,

and deFiebre). Whenever passengers hop into a public transit, they deposit fares into the

farebox. In California, the percentage of total operating revenues that people pay for through

fares is known as the farebox recovery ratio. Farebox recovery is a criterion used to assess

the efficiency and effectiveness of public transport systems. The financial aims are to

increase revenue/minimize patronage loss; increase of pre-payment, improve revenue control,

minimize fare evasion and abuse, and lower collection expenses. The customers benefit by

having a wide range of fair options, increased convenience, and maximized social equity.

Therefore, the use of this framework enabled California to enhance investment returns by

optimizing the productivity and capacity of the current transport infrastructure in

California.

Lastly, seaports and airports generate about $5 billion in revenues per year by

charging for the use of their facilities (LAO Report). Long wait times at border ports of entry,

for example, delay access to intermediary products. This causes significant issues in the

manufacturing chain, and create negative traffic congestion along with adverse air quality

effects. The funds generated from seaports and airports are therefore used to develop and

maintain a robust and multimodal goods movement network. By investing in infrastructure at

airports and seaports of entry, there is a resultant relieve in traffic congestion and wear and

tear on highways. An influx of economic activity thus provided through the State of

California.

5

Conclusion

This study has shown how California is committed to addressing transportation needs and

critical infrastructure through funding. As illustrated, transportation systems must be

consistently and regularly maintained to preserve existing public infrastructure. However,

current revenues lag concerning the needs of the state highway, local road, and transit

systems. There is, therefore, a need for all Californians to adequately invest in the

transportation infrastructure. A potential solution is for the State to consider replacing the

high gas tax with a new user fee over long term. Moreover, a formula that depends largely on

historical gas prices and less on future estimates can benefit the ability of local governments

to plan transportation budgets.

6

Works Cited

Comprehensive AnnualFinancial Repor. “Financial Reports, Taxes, And Economy”.

Https://Sco.Ca.Gov/Files-ARD/CAFR/Cafr18web.Pdf, 2018, https://sco.ca.gov/.

Federal Transit Administration. “U.S. Department Of Transportation Announces $1 Billion

To Expand Trolley Service In San Diego”. Federal Transit Administration, 2019,

https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/us-department-transportation-announces-1-

billion-expand-trolley-service-san-diego.

Governor’s Budget. Transportation Proposals. 2019,

https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3745.

LAO Report. California’s Transportation System. 2018,

https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3860.

LAO Report. The 2019-20 Budget: California Spending Plan. 2019,

https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4098.

Levinson, David, and Conrad deFiebre. “Farebox Recovery: The Economics Of Public

Transit | Minnpost”. Minnpost, 2015, https://www.minnpost.com/minnesota-blog-

cabin/2013/06/farebox-recovery-economics-public-transit/.

United States. Cong. Senate. SB-1 Transportation funding. Sacramento: GPO, 2017. Print.

https://sco.ca.gov/

https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/us-department-transportation-announces-1-billion-expand-trolley-service-san-diego

https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/us-department-transportation-announces-1-billion-expand-trolley-service-san-diego

https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3745

https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3860

https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4098

Farebox recovery: The economics of public transit

Farebox recovery: The economics of public transit

1

Transportation Funding

Introduction

As with any developed economies, transportation infrastructure is key in enabling

economic growth, explaining why the state as well as local governments have prioritized

transportation funding. There have been uncertainties relating to the action of parties such as

federal government and rising costs of repair and maintenance that have led to states having to

carry a larger burden. In response, they have chosen for options such as leveraging public-private

partnerships which do not act as sources of funds, but as opportunity creators, hence leading to

cost savings (2016 P3 Statute Categorization and Analysis, 2017). As states feel they should take

more responsibility, it can be seen that there are changes and proposed models and legislations

which will see that state in partnership with other actors such as private organizations can take

part in funding the transportation sector.

Discussion

As noted, transportation funding is needed at the state level. Earlier on, there was an

overreliance on federal funding, which has over the years led to challenges due to the fact that

such funds are not sustainable. Sometimes the availability of the funds is affected by changing

economic times among other factors. The states have continued to take it upon themselves when

it comes to transport funding. Currently, there are funding shortfalls which means that states are

left without enough funds for funding infrastructure development and establishment.

Additionally, it is imperative to note that some of the infrastructure projects are complex where

even more funding and resources may be required. On the other hand, it is the duty of the states

and federal governments to offer public transit, which is deemed a benefit for the public. This

2

type of transit has a number of benefits such as reducing congestion as well as carbon footprints.

There are less personal cars on the road which is good for the environment which has continually

become a key issue. Notably, the efficiency of public transit can only be realized if there is

enough funding of transport infrastructure. The infrastructure should be established and upgraded

in a bid to ensure that public transit is efficient and in line with initial goals. This notes a major

reason by transport funding should be undertaken seriously.

A report by the Congressional Budget Office (2014) looked into the changes that may be

experienced in the event that the new legislations are put in place. Already, there are tremendous

costs that are being incurred as a result of technicalities and are rapidly increasing. The budget

officer noted that balances in Highway Trust Fund, contracting authority expenditure, and

changes in direct spending could be experienced. This means that the already extensive spending

on the transportation sector would alternatively increase to a level that may not be sustainable for

a longer time.

In the US, a vast majority of resources and transportation funding go to surface

transportation. The sources for the funds involve state, federal, and local authorities. Going back

to 2012, around $221 billion was put to building highways, $58 billion was put in transit, $16.9

billion put into capital investments, and $14.4 billion put to operations costs. It is imperative to

note that about 29% of the funds came from taxes on motor fuel as well as other vehicle fees and

taxes levied on US consumers. About 20% of the funds came from general funds while the

remainder of the funding came from bonds, investment income, and tolls (Transportation,

funding & Financing, 2019). It can be seen that though the US has a self-sufficient system for

Funding transportation, the funds are not enough due to the fact that costs and expenditures are

growing steadily fast. For instance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the costs of contract

3

authority between 2013 and 2014 had increased by over $1billion which indicates a major

development that is leading to unavailability of enough funds when it comes to transportation

funding. In response, the states are required to seek other options for funding such as utilization

of Public-Private Partnerships (P3). The P3s have created an opportunity for states where

additional financing opportunities are provided. Though not all states have undertaken them, the

number is still growing. The diagram below shows states with Transportation P3 enabling

legislation as of 2016.

As states take more responsibility in terms of transportation funding, there have been

proposals for P3 legislations. First, it is imperative to note that partnerships such as the P3 are

complex and vulnerable to various issues, hence the need for the legislature arm to institute laws

and regulations that will govern the working structure of the P3s. The legislation is meant for

accomplishing a framework within which the various agencies can establish the role of

government levels when it comes to benefiting from the resources the three provide. When there

4

is an effective legislation, the interests of the public will be protected and conditions for

agreements between the parties will be established (2016 P3 Statute Categorization and Analysis,

2017). Additionally, the legislations are looking into extending additional authority of the

various local governments which will enable local option taxes as well as sub-allocation of

particular funds that previously went to the state. A good example is the states of Pennsylvania

and Minnesota that have allowed counties to levy taxes on vehicle fees (Recent State Legislation

Allowing for more Local Transportation Funding, 2014). Up to now, at least twelve states have

already put in place legislations that are for allowing the counties to collect local income tax.

These are some of the developments that are being brought about as a result of the new trends on

the need for new legislations.

The federal government has a number of roles to play when it comes to transportation

funding as follows. First, the federal government is supposed to offer the Highway Trust Fund,

which is mainly about surface transportation and capital projects. It is imperative to note that

some of the funds under the trust fund is given to states and local governments as grants which

must go funding transportation. In 2018 alone, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that the

Trust fund’s revenues accumulated to at least $41 billion (Key Elements of U.S. Tax System,

2016). The revenues come from the federal exercise tax on gas, diesel fuel, and taxes and levy

from other sources as earlier outlined. Additionally, under the Federal Transit Administration,

the federal government funds budgetary programs. The federal government tends to pay for

budgetary programs through gasoline taxes. Also, the funds can be used for the establishment or

development of the transit project. Further, it is important to note that the federal government is

also involved in subsidies that are aimed at promoting transport infrastructure at both state and

5

federal levels (MacKechnie, 2019). In essence, the federal government has much to do when it

comes to funding the transportation sector.

Currently, there are numerous projects majorly by the state governments that are meant

for improving on the transportation sector. One, the Transportation Authority of Northern

Arizona is overseeing a project that involves the creation of a corridor-based BRT between the

Flagship Mall and the Pulliam regional airport (Current Capital Investment Grant, 2019). This is

seen as a major development that will address congestion issues that have been experienced over

the years as a result of the rapidly growing population in the area. The project has received a

grant from the federal government as well as funds from the state and local governments. Two,

the San Diego Association of Governments is also overseeing construction of Mid-Coast transit

project, which is an improvement and a means of addressing traffic issues in the area. San Diego

is one of the regions in the state of California that are experiencing rapid economic growth,

hence the need for equal growth in infrastructure (Current Capital Investment Grant, 2019). The

project is being funded by both state and local governments. Though the project has also

received an investment grant, the two are currently ongoing projects are being funded to a larger

part by the state and local governments. As can be seen, like many other projects, their aim

entails addressing traffic problems as well as aligning transport infrastructure with the current

economic growth.

Conclusion

The transportation sector is a key sector when it comes to economic growth and

development. Federal, state, and local governments are also playing a role in enabling

transportation funding, especially as a result of new legislations that are empowering state and

local governments to collect revenues. The state is facing challenges as an amount receivable

6

from the federal government is neither sustainable nor enough. A major response to this entails

creation of Public-Private Partnerships which are providing better opportunities for financing and

cost saving. However, for these two to work effectively, there is a need for legislations for

regulating the partnerships to be put in place.

7

References

2016 P3 Statute Categorization and Analysis. (2017, February 16). Retrieved from NCSL:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/public-private-partnerships-for-

transportation-categorization-and-analysis-of-state-statutes-january-2016.aspx

Current Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Projects. (2019, March 15). Retrieved from Federal

Transit Administration: https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-

investments/current-capital-investment-grant-cig-projects

Key Elements of the U.S. Tax System. (2016, August 30). Retrieved from Tax Policy Center:

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-highway-trust-fund-and-how-it-

financed

MacKechnie, C. (2019, February 19). The Basics of Transit Funding . Retrieved from

Thoughtco: https://www.thoughtco.com/basics-of-transit-funding-2798674

Recent State Legislation Allowing for More Local Transportation Funding. (2014, May 13).

Retrieved from Transportation for America: http://t4america.org/maps-tools/measuring-

up/measuring-up-recent-state-legislation-allowing-for-more-local-transportation-funding/

Transportation Funding & Financing. (2019, March 02). Retrieved from BATIC Institute:

http://www.financingtransportation.org/funding_financing/funding/

Page 1

Writing a Paper for the Transportation Research Record
The Creative Part of the Project

Writing a technical paper is a difficult task, whether it’s your first
paper or twentieth. Each journal’s publisher and reviewers have
unique expectations, goals, and concerns. The following
instructions will help you decide if you should write a paper for the
Transportation Research Record (TRR). The guidance describes
what TRR reviewers look for, suggestions about the paper’s
content, advice on style, and reviews the writing process. Written
by Transportation Research Board (TRB) staff, volunteers, TRR
authors, and members of the TRR Publication Board, this guide is
intended to improve the dissemination of transportation research
by improving the quality of transportation research papers.

As an author, your main goal in a technical paper is to tell a good
story. Crafting a good paper not only improves the odds of
publication but also improves the chances of making an impact on
the transportation profession and practice. The quality of technical
papers is not measured by the number of equations or the amount
of jargon—a high-quality paper tells a compelling story.

Should You Write a TRB Paper?
You may be eager to write a paper for TRB, but first consider the requirements carefully. Before
investing time in writing a technical paper, ask what previously was known about the topic, what is
known now that you have completed your work, and what is the difference? If the difference is not
substantial and does not advance the state of knowledge, the state of the practice, or the state of the
art, then the paper topic is not worthwhile. Tweaking an equation, for example, is not an advance.
TRR reviewers look for papers that present a substantive advance and a good reason that future
readers will care. If the reviewers do not find both, your paper will not proceed.

If the project or the research you are writing about is
not complete, the story is not complete—only a few
chapters or scenes are available. Demand is limited
for a literature review of an upcoming project or for a
description of what you will be working on next year.
Progress reports do not merit publication in a TRR.

Because TRB papers run the gamut from materials
testing to policy evaluation, providing specific criteria
for the content of a paper is difficult. But whatever the
type of paper you are writing, reporting on a set of
facts is not sufficient—you must apply critical thinking
to your work and provide readers with a clear
statement of what was learned and why they should
care. Again, the goal should be to tell an important
story.

Top 10 Ways to Get Your Paper Rejected
(drawn from 1)
1. Ignore the word limit.
2. Ignore the formatting rules.
3. Include spelling and grammar mistakes.
4. Do not provide relevant references.
5. Submit nearly identical papers to several

committees or even one committee.
6. Do not revise your paper—think of it as a

work of art.
7. Insert random tables and graphics.
8. Never explain the main findings—your

readers should be able to figure that out.
9. Do not respond to reviewer comments.
10. Miss deadlines.

Major Points
• Carefully consider

whether you should
write a paper.

• Understand the TRB
review process and
what the reviewers are
looking for.

• Observe all of the
ethical rules for
technical papers.

• Submit a clear, well-
written paper that
follows all of the TRR
specifications.

Page 2

Before Beginning Your Paper
After determining that your topic warrants publication, how should you proceed? First, learn the TRR’s
rules for submission deadlines, maximum length, and copyright requirements (see the TRR-specific
references at the end of this document). Even if you have submitted papers to the TRR before, it is
good to review the rules. Experienced authors often violate
the rules and then are shocked when their papers are
rejected. The rules apply to all papers submitted to TRB and
reviewed by TRR reviewers, including those for presentation
only.

Understand the Process
Understanding the process for TRR review and publication is critical.
• Speed. The TRR review and publication process moves quickly. Initial review is completed in one

month. After the first review, only about 30% of the papers remain under consideration for
publication. The authors of those papers have one month to respond to reviewer comments and to
submit a revised paper. The second review takes place during the next two months.

• Committee Review. TRB standing technical committees conduct the reviews of papers. Authors
should be familiar with the TRB committees. Review the committees and their scopes at
http://trb.org/AboutTRB/StandingCommitteesMT.aspx. Papers outside the scope of any TRB
committee will not be reviewed. Authors of papers with topics that cut across the scopes of several
committees should communicate with TRB staff officers to ensure that the paper is handled
correctly; papers with crosscutting topics will be reviewed.

• Quantity. Each year, TRB processes approximately 5,000 papers in a range of topics. Because of
the large number of papers, adherence to procedures is essential for efficiency—the system and
reviewers are not forgiving. Authors must comply with the rules and submit well-thought-out
papers.

• Reviewer constraints. TRR reviewers often read through many papers in a short period; they are
volunteers and contribute their time and expertise while fulfilling the responsibilities of their paying
jobs and personal lives. They do not have the time to figure out a paper that is difficult to read. In
addition, the reviewer assignment may not be perfect—every reviewer assigned to your paper may
not be well-versed in all aspects of your topic; this is a common occurrence in any technical review.
Therefore make sure that your paper is understandable to someone who may be less than a perfect
expert (2).

• Quality. After the re-review of revised papers, another 5-10% is rejected. Only 20% of the papers
submitted each year are accepted for publication. This is a low acceptance rate in the field of
transportation. Your paper must be very good to make the cut.

• Electronic processing. TRR papers are distributed to reviewers electronically, and most of them
conduct the reviews online. Paper and electronic media require different reading styles and
evaluation approaches. The structure and important points of a paper, therefore, should stand out
naturally.

The TRR’s fast process has many benefits—for example, getting the research results out quickly. The
main drawback is that there are no do-overs. Each paper stands on its own merits; once a paper is
rejected, no opportunities are given for another try that year.

Warning: TRR papers cannot include
explicit or implicit advocacy of
commercial software or products.

http://trb.org/AboutTRB/StandingCommitteesMT.aspx

Page 3

Understand the Reviewers’ Perspective
An author should consider and understand what the TRR reviewers are looking for. The Paper
Reviewer Instructions is an excellent reference for authors.

The most frequent criticisms of papers submitted for TRR review are the following:

• The point of the paper is not clear.
• The writing is so bad that it takes away from the research.
• The findings are not supported in a logical manner.
• The literature review is inadequate.
• Data are inconsistent or of poor quality.
• The statistical analysis is poor.
• The measures are not scientifically valid.

TRR reviewers reject papers that report on dead-
end research and accept those that can lead to new
and interesting advances. They also look for papers
that will generate broad interest and lasting value.

Writing a technical paper is difficult, and authors
should educate themselves about the process. The
references and additional resources at the end of
this document are a good starting point.

Ethical and Other Considerations
Every journal deals with the same basic ethical
issues—the list below is not specific to the TRR.
Authors must avoid violations of the basic rules.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the use of information or
concepts from another article, website, or report
without clearly attributing the source. Plagiarism is
not acceptable. Phrases, sentences, or sections taken from another document must appear within
quotation marks. TRR reviewers are well-read—they often review papers for other journals, and they
know the transportation literature; they will detect plagiarism.

Submittal to Other Journals: The content must not have been published elsewhere. In some cases,
however, TRB may accept papers that have been submitted to or published by other organizations,
provided that the publication has had limited distribution and that the author has secured the necessary
clearances and permissions. Such cases are handled individually; the author should contact the TRB
Technical Activities Division Director.

Fragmented Publication: Breaking a single piece of work into many papers dilutes the information,
makes it difficult for reviewers or readers to assess the advances that may have been made, and
irritates reviewers who must evaluate several papers derived from the same project. Reporting on
many small aspects of a single project in multiple papers may result in all of the papers being rejected
because none of the papers presents a good story (3). If an author does so, each paper must be a
stand-alone paper; i.e., papers with a Part I and II will not be accepted for review.

Authorship Disputes: Identifying the authors of a paper can be a cause of contention and should be
addressed early in the research process and before the writing begins (4). The generally accepted

Paper Categories: Presentation Only,
Publication Only, or Both

A paper may be submitted in one of three
categories: presentation only, publication only, or
both. All papers must conform to the word limit
and formatting rules; all papers go through the
same initial review and are evaluated under the
same criteria. All papers accepted for
presentation, and all papers accepted for
publication, or papers still under consideration
for publication, may be revised and resubmitted
by November 15. They will be included on the
online Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers,
unless the author opts out.

Many papers undergo a re-review between
November 15 and the end of January. Final
publication decisions are typically sent to authors
in mid-February.

Page 4

rules for authorship credit are as follows: “1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or
acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for
important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of version to be published. All three of these
conditions should be met for authorship, (4) Anyone credited as an author should have played a
significant role in the research and in the writing of the paper.” Honorary credit for authorship is
dishonest.

Paper Structure and Outline
TRB papers vary widely, from technical evaluations of material or of analytical processes to policy
topics that explore the impacts of governmental actions or projects. Each TRB paper therefore may not
include all of the sections below.

Title: The title is the first place an author can lose reviewers and potential readers. A good title clearly
describes the content of the paper in an interesting and succinct manner. A good title takes work. The
title should not contain jargon, acronyms, or terminology not well known to the general public.

Abstract: The abstract must tell readers quickly and succinctly what they can learn from the paper and
how it applies to them. An abstract outlines the story and includes the end of the story. A well-written
abstract provides the context for readers new to the topic area and summarizes the results in enough
detail for a topic expert. If you want readers to invest the time to read your paper, capture their interest
with your abstract. The abstract should be able to stand alone—later on it often will be the only part of
your paper that is read. In addition, many indexing services are authorized to publish TRR paper
abstracts separately.

Introduction: An introduction consists of three major components: the literature review and
background; an outline of the principal findings and why they matter; and a description of the framework
of the paper. The literature review may be covered in its own section, particularly in academic papers.
The introduction provides a context for the research or activity and should make clear why a reader
should care. The introduction also should make clear where the background stops and where the
author’s contribution starts (5). Your principal finding should be reduced to the most critical points; the
introduction should focus the material for your reader (6). A surprise ending may be appropriate in a
work of fiction but is not effective in a technical paper. By the end of the introduction, the reader should
know what you learned and should be motivated to read more. An introduction that closes with a
boring and formulaic statement “the next section will describe…, the section after that will cover…, and
the final section discusses…” is deadly and will guarantee that a reader will not want to continue.
Instead, give the highlights of the story or proceed directly to the next section.

Literature Reviews: The literature review is part of the story you are crafting—it sets the stage for your
research, establishes why the research is important, and how you were led to your work. A list of
papers with summaries will not suffice. Deciding what material to include in the literature review is
critical—what breadth of research to cover, how far back to go, and how much analysis to provide will
depend on the topic. Describe how your paper builds on the earlier work and advances the practice.
Developing a literature review is a balancing act—too much material can lose your reader, but too little
can leave the impression that your work is not on solid ground. Claerbout’s Scrutiny of the Introduction
is excellent resource on introductions and literature reviews (8).

Materials, Methods, and Data: The section presenting materials, methods, and data will vary by the
type of paper but should provide enough detail that a reader can “repeat your study and reproduce the
results” (9). For example, a policy paper might describe the case study process or the interview
process. The discussion in this section should be clear, chronological, and precise.

Page 5

Tables, Figures, and Graphics: Do not include tables, figures, or graphics if the information can be
expressed in one sentence. A table or figure counts as 250 words against the TRR word limit and can
break up the flow of the story you are trying to tell. All tables and figures should be cited in the text—
the reader needs to know when the information is important in the story. A reader should also be able
to understand the information in a table or figure without referring to the text. Include clear titles and
labels, units, and significant digits; align columns and text appropriately; spell out variables; and use
consistent styles, fonts, and sizes (6).

Discussion of Results: This portion of your paper highlights the most critical findings, compares your
results with those of earlier efforts, and provides policy or real-world implications. Describe the findings
that can be drawn—do not expect readers to deduce critical trends on their own. Identify the principles
that your results establish or reinforce. Clearly state the main points you want the reader to remember.

Conclusion: TRR papers are limited in length—therefore each section should contribute something
new to the paper. A conclusion should not recap the preceding text. If you have something new and
important to say in a conclusion, present it; otherwise, save your words for the main body of the paper.
“A good conclusion says things that become significant after the paper has been read (10).” In some
cases, a “no finding” conclusion is important and makes the paper worthy of publication; however,
telling that type of story can be more difficult.

Acknowledgment: An acknowledgment recognizes funding sources for the research and identifies
individuals who contributed to the work but did not meet the criteria for authorship.

References: The TRR reviewers will expect the references to include seminal works that have
preceded your efforts. Authors should strive for a mix of foundational research and new research, with
a limited amount of unpublished research or reports that have not been through peer review (11).
Authors of papers about policy or projects often make the mistake of not including references. This is a
critical oversight, because policies and projects typically are based on or draw from previous,
documented attempts. TRR authors receive free access to the full text of papers published in the TRR
since 1996; see www.TRB.org/TRRforAuthors.

Writing Style
The best general advice on writing is to read The Elements of Style (12) and then to reread it. All of the
advice in this excellent 100-page book applies to TRR papers—for example,

• “Make the paragraph the unit of composition: one paragraph to each topic.”
• “As a rule, begin each paragraph with a topic sentence; end it in conformity with the
beginning.”
• “Use the active voice.”
• “Put statements in positive form.”
• “Omit needless words.”
• “Avoid a succession of loose sentences.”

Remember that the reviewers will be reading through many papers in a short time. Making their job
easy by writing clearly will be to your advantage. Text that is confusing and that lacks clarity may
cause reviewers to give up on a paper. If your paper makes it through the review process, it still will
have to compete for readers’ time—therefore provide a structure and employ a style that guide the
reader through the document. Readers should always know where they are in the story and where you
are going. The best findings cannot overcome poor writing.

Page 6

The Writing Process
Writing, editing, and initial review are separate but critical steps. Each step takes time—start early.
TRB’s August 1 paper deadline catches everyone by surprise, although it does not change from year to
year. Remember that no do-overs are permitted after August 1. Your paper is judged on its own
merits—the typographical errors you did not catch because you ran out of time will stand out.

Writing should begin with an outline—a logical step that many authors skip. If you plan on writing a
paper about a research effort or project, start thinking about the paper’s content at the beginning of the
project. Outlining the paper early on can sharpen your thinking during the project and facilitate the
writing process.

Editing begins after you have completed the draft. Set the draft aside for a while and then start editing.
Go through the document several times. At least three editorial iterations are good practice. One
review should focus on eliminating unnecessary words and phrases. Reading the document out loud
can highlight missing transitions and content.

Reviews by an editor and by peers are invaluable. A review before you have made some editing
iterations is less useful. Have your paper reviewed by an editor or by a peer who is a good writer. In
addition, seeking out at least one peer reviewer who is an expert in your field and one who is not can
yield valuable insights to improve your paper—both should be able to follow your paper, but each will
offer different suggestions.

After Submitting Your Paper
You will hear from the paper review coordinator and TRB staff about your paper’s status in mid-to-late
October. The e-mail from the paper review coordinator will include the TRR reviewer comments. These
comments are valuable, whether or not the paper is being considered for publication. If your paper is
rejected for publication in the TRR, you are free to use the reviewer’s comments to improve your paper
and to submit it elsewhere. If your paper is still being considered for publication, or has been accepted
for publication in the TRR, use the reviewer comments to update and improve your paper before the
next step in the review process.

TRB-Specific References –
• Paper Submission – The paper submission link will lead the user through MyTRB to the “tab” for

paper submissions. They will have to login to MyTRB to access the Paper Submission tab.
• Paper Author Resource Page
• Guide for Submitting Papers for Peer Review and AM Presentation
• Submitting your Paper to TRB and What Happens Afterward Paper Submittal Instructions
• Paper Reviewer Instructions
• Paper Review Coordinator Instructions
• Paper Triage Process
• Paper Clearances and Copyrighted Material

References
1. Horacio Plotkin. How to Get Your Paper Rejected. BMJ, 329, p. 1469 (Dec. 18, 2004).

www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7480/1469.
2. Jim Kajiya. How to Get Your SIGGRAPH Paper Rejected.

http://www.siggraph.org/publications/kajiya .
3. Guidelines: Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication. Society for Neuroscience.

www.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=responsibleConduct.

https://www.mytrb.org/?PressAmpTarget=/Paper/Instructions

http://www.trb.org/AnnualMeeting/AMPaperAuthorResource.aspx

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/AM/InfoForAuthors

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/am/2016/SubmittingandWhatsNext

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/am/2016/ReviewerInstructions

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/am/2016/PaperReviewCoordinator

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/am/2016/TRBTriage

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7480/1469

http://www.siggraph.org/publications/kajiya

Page 7

4. Tim Albert and Elizabeth Wager. How to Handle Authorship Disputes: A Guide for New
Researchers. The COPE Report 2003. http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/2003pdf12 .

5. William Wells. Me Write Pretty One Day: How to Write a Good Scientific Paper. JCB, Vol. 165, No.
6, pp. 757–758 (2004). http://jcb.rupress.org/content/165/6/757.full.

6. Gail Kaiser, Craig Partridge, Sumit Roy, Eric Siegel, Sal Stolfo, Luca Trevisan, Yechiam Yemini,
and Erez Zadok. Writing Technical Articles. www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/etc/writing-style.html.

6. Chandra Bhat, Abdul Pinjari, Naveen Eluru, Ipek Sener, Rachael Copperman, and Jeff LaMondia..
Suggestions and Guidelines for Good Writing. Unpublished.

8. Jon Claerbout. Scrutiny of the Introduction. GNU General Public License, 1995.
http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/prof/Intro.html.

9. How Do I Write a Scientific Paper? SciDev.Net, Feb. 6, 2008. http://www.scidev.net/en/practical-
guides/how-do-i-write-a-scientific-paper-.html.

10. Elements of Style. Nature Physics, 3, 581 (2007).
www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n9/full/nphys724.html.

11. Roy Levin and David D. Redell. An Evaluation of the Ninth SOSP Submissions, or How (and
How Not) to Write a Good Systems Paper. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, Vol. 17, No.
3, July 1983, pp. 35–40. www.usenix.org/event/samples/submit/advice.html.

12. William Strunk, Jr., and E. B. White. The Elements of Style. 4th ed., Longman, New York, 1999.

Additional Resources
Bimal K. Bose. How to Get a Paper Accepted in TRANSACTIONS? http://ieee-

ies.org/tii/HowToTransactionsPaper .
Michael Ernst. Writing a Technical Paper. April 2005 (Updated April 21, 2010).

www.sc.washington.edu/homes/mernst/advice/write-technical-paper.html.
Glenn R. Schmidt, Joe Harris, Shanna Boleman, and John Roans. How to Get Your Paper Published.

50th Annual Reciprocal Meat Conference, American Meat Science Association, pp. 151 –152.
Jonathan Shewchuk. Three Sins of Authors in Computer Science and Math.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jrs/sins.html.
Tao Xie and Yuan Xie. Advice Collection. people.engr.ncsu.edu/txie/advice.htm.

Document Authors
Chandra R. Bhat, University of Texas, Austin
Kimberly M. Fisher, TRB
David Kuehn, Federal Highway Administration
Joe P. Mahoney, University of Washington
Robert B. McGennis, Holly Asphalt Company
Abolfazi (Kouros) Mohammadian, University of Illinois, Chicago
Mark R. Norman, TRB
Srinivas Peeta, Purdue University
Ronald George Van Houten, Western Michigan University

(Revised by TRB Staff: June 2015)

http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/2003pdf12

http://jcb.rupress.org/content/165/6/757.full

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/%7Ehgs/etc/writing-style.html

http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/prof/Intro.html

http://www.scidev.net/en/practical-guides/how-do-i-write-a-scientific-paper-.html

http://www.scidev.net/en/practical-guides/how-do-i-write-a-scientific-paper-.html

http://www.nnature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n9/full/nphys724.html

http://www.usenix.org/event/samples/submit/advice.html

http://ieee-ies.org/tii/HowToTransactionsPaper

http://ieee-ies.org/tii/HowToTransactionsPaper

http://www.sc.washington.edu/homes/mernst/advice/write-technical-paper.html

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/%7Ejrs/sins.html