<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=PHNlYXJjaD48cGFyYW1zPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJkYXRlaW4iIHZhbHVlPSJhbGwiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9InN1YmplY3Rsb2dpYyIgdmFsdWU9Im9yIiAvPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJ0ZXJtc2xvZ2ljIiB2YWx1ZT0ib3IiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9ImxvY2F0aW9uIiB2YWx1ZT0iMCIgLz48L3BhcmFtcz48ZmlsdGVycz48ZmlsdGVyIGZpZWxkPSJpbmRleHRlcm1zIiB2YWx1ZT0iJnF1b3Q7R3VpZGFuY2Ugc2lnbnMmcXVvdDsiIG9yaWdpbmFsX3ZhbHVlPSImcXVvdDtHdWlkYW5jZSBzaWducyZxdW90OyIgLz48L2ZpbHRlcnM+PHJhbmdlcyAvPjxzb3J0cz48c29ydCBmaWVsZD0icHVibGlzaGVkIiBvcmRlcj0iZGVzYyIgLz48L3NvcnRzPjxwZXJzaXN0cz48cGVyc2lzdCBuYW1lPSJyYW5nZXR5cGUiIHZhbHVlPSJwdWJsaXNoZWRkYXRlIiAvPjwvcGVyc2lzdHM+PC9zZWFyY2g+" 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>GAP ANALYSIS. BUS SIGNAGE GUIDELINES FOR PERSONS WITH VISUAL IMPAIRMENTS: ELECTRONIC SIGNS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/707218</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report focuses on the adequacy of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) destination signage guidelines for visual technologies used to improve the dissemination of public transit information to the visually impaired.  Specifically, this document is concerned with the use of light emitting diode (LED) and liquid crystal display (LCD) signs in and on the transit vehicle to present destination and route information.  The content is derived from relevant standards, guidelines, and research literature identified during extensive government and commercial searches, as well as a comprehensive search of world wide web resources.  To the extent available, input from subject matter experts and industry points of contact is also included.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/707218</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE SAFETY WARNING SYSTEM: AN IN-VEHICLE SIGNING SYSTEM USING AN EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE OF 10 TO 20 MILLION VEHICULAR RECEIVERS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/473997</link>
      <description><![CDATA[There are an estimated 10 to 20 million police radar detectors used on the highways of the United States daily.  Traditionally, drivers have used these detectors to detect radar equipped plice cars and motorcycles, as well as the laser radar used for police speed measurement.  This paper describes a system that has been developed by the Georgia Tech Research Institute during the past 18 months to communicate highway safety warning and information alerts to the driver of any vehicle equipped with a police radar detector built before 1996.  More expensive detectors built after 1996 have the capability to display a safety warning message on an alphanumeric display that can be read by the driver, as well as having a voice synthesizer that can speak the message.  The Safety Warning System (SWS) to be described may be one of the first practical applications of in-vehicle signing similar to what might be implemented in the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS).  The SWS can be used immediately with an existing infrastructure of users.  In addition, the technology can be used in a safety warning only receiver system capable of displaying highway safety and information messages but having no capability to detect and alert a motorist to the presence of police radar.  The experience gained and lessons learned from the SWS have application to the ITS to be deployed in the next century.  The advances in radar detector technology, created by the demand for the product and the improvement in technology has made the SWS system practical to implement inexpensively.  The SWS transmitter is to be offered in two versions: (1) a mobile unit that operates when a police or emergency vehicle activates the emergency strobe lights, and (2) a roadside transmitter that can be activated on command.  The mobile transmitter is capable of transmitting one of two possible messages (moving or stationary warning) that warns of the presence of the host vehicle.  The roadside SWS transmitter is capable of transmitting any one of 64 fixed text messages to the motorist equipped with an SWS cabable detector.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/473997</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>BUS ROUTE GUIDANCE INFORMATION DESIGN: A MANUAL FOR BUS AND LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEMS - SECOND EDITION, INCORPORATES ADA GUIDELINES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/466701</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Design guidelines and information are offered for static signage and handout information to assist transit riders in route planning and guidance.  An earlier version of this manual was published in 1994.  The manual now incorporates Americans with Disability (ADA) design guidelines, and also has an Appendix which comprises a digest of ADA Accessibility Guidelines to bus and light transit stop design.  The manual provides concise and explicit advice on how to design signs at stops, transfer points, and terminals for street and system maps, route maps and timetables, route and direction designation, and locator signs. Information is also given for the design of timetables and system maps for distribution to riders.  100 transit companies were surveyed by mail and telephone ,of which 65 sent specimens of their route guidance material.  This material helped the authors arrive at these suggestions, however in some cases the authors had to rely upon their Human Factors and Ergonomics backgrounds to provide guidance in the absence of consensus.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/466701</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF IN-CAR NAVIGATION INFORMATION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/361339</link>
      <description><![CDATA[An important issue in the design of in-car navigation systems is what information to present to the driver.  In this study guidelines for information presentation were developed based on a brief review of the literqture.  Three different types of navigation information were subsequently compared in a field experiment. The different navigation instructions were: (1) arrows; (2) instructions using road signs (e.g., Follow Utrecht); (3) multiple instructions presented simultaneously (e.g., Follow Utrecht, Follow Hoogland, Follow Leusden).  The instructions were presented on cards.  Fourty-two drivers, twenty-one male and twenty-one female, took part in the field study.  Subjects followed navigation instructions on three different types of roads: highways, main roads within a city, and secondary roads inn a residential area.  Subjects were unfamiliar with the roads they drove on.  Navigation errors, subjective workload estimates, and answers to questionnaires were recorded.  The results showed that subjects performed worse on all measures when following multiple instructions as compared to single instructions (arrows or road signs). Multiple instructions were found particularly unclear and unreliable on the busy main roads within cities rather than on highways.  No difference was found between arrows and single instructions using road signs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 1992 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/361339</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE FEDERAL AIRWAY SYSTEM</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/49268</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This publication provides information on airports, facility ground aids, safety aids, communications, navigation and air traffic control.  Descriptions of various weather monitoring as well as ground monitoring and flight inspection systems are also provided.  Intermediate airfields, Alaskan airports, FAA airports, municipal county and state airports are reviewed as well as private airports, military airports and heliports.  Lighting, marking, wind indicators and guidance signs are briefly described, and descriptions of arresting systems, fire fighting, and crash rescue equipment are provided.  Communication aspects related to flight service stations, point to point communication, interphone system, land line teletypewriter services, flight advisory service, and VHF/UHF direction finders, etc. are outlined. The short distance navigation system, the instrument landing system and the long distance system are discussed, and a selected list of source material is provided.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 1977 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/49268</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RESEARCH ON ROUTE DIVERSION PARAMETERS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/32107</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study seeks to determine the feasibility of the real-time diversion of traffic in an intercity corridor. Using the 30 mile corridor between Baltimore, Md. and Washington, D.C. as a study area, the research efforts initially focused on the topics of highway operation evaluation, incident detection, diversion policy and communication techniques.  Because of the general lack of information of diversion signing techniques, a questionnaire study of 6600 motorists using the corridor was undertaken.  The study found that motorists preferred signs presenting information on the length of congestion, congestion cause with exit instructions or the availability of suitable alternate routes.  These findings were combined with the other factors related to real-time route diversion to develop a general structure for implementing such a program for the four major routes connecting Baltimore and Washington.  While several technical problems would have to be resolved, the findings of this research could be utilized to upgrade the corridor operation.  It is felt that if the growth in the Baltimore-Washignton corridor traffic continues, a real-time diversion program would be warranted in about ten years.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 1976 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/32107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>