<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>Association between the built environment and children's independent mobility: A meta-analytic review</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1468224</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Children's independent mobility (CIM) is considered as a determining criterion of child-friendly built environment (BE). Researchers have made a substantial effort to identify the characteristics of the BE that affect CIM and thereby to inform city policy to promote CIM. Although the findings from these studies are useful to inform context specific CIM policy, together they provide inconclusive results. This study made a first attempt to draw a generalised conclusion through a meta-analysis of existing knowledge base. The analysis was conducted using primary studies reporting 13 BE-CIM links and published between 1980 and 2016. Overall effect size (ES), directions, and consistency of each link were calculated, also stratified by contexts, using the reported results from the primary studies and based on a random effect model. The results show that four BE factors (dead-end street, % of residential land, % of commercial land, and residential location type) have a positive association with CIM; traffic volume has a neutral association; and the remaining eight factors (vehicular street width, road density, intersection density, major road proportion, land use mix, availability of recreational facilities, residential density, and distance to destination) have a negative association. Living in a dead end street was found to have the strongest positive ES (0.352), with moderate level of consistency across the primary studies. In contrast, land use mix has the strongest negative ES (- 0.212) but with the highest level of inconsistency. Both ESs and consistencies, however, vary between developing and developed country contexts. Diversity in contexts, research design, and measurement instruments across the primary studies contributed to the heterogeneous results. The findings of this research serve as a guide for practitioners and researcher alike to make an informed decision about the BE factors that consistently foster or hinder CIM in different contexts.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2017 08:23:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1468224</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TRAFFIC-CALMING BASICS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/514484</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The goals of traffic calming are typically to reduce vehicle speeds, traffic volume, or both.  Volume-control measures limit traffic by restricting vehicle access.  They include full street closures, half closures, diagonal diverters, median barriers, and forced-turn islands.  Speed-control measures can be divided into three types:  vertical, horizontal, and narrowing.  Vertical speed controls include speed humps, which are parabolic, circular, or sinusoidal mounds placed across a roadway.  Speed tables are basically flat-topped speed humps.  Horizontal speed controls slow traffic by requiring vehicles to shift direction in order to maneuver around them.  The most common is the traffic circle.  Narrowings control speed by reducing the amount of lateral space in which vehicles can maneuver.  These include neckdowns, center islands, and chokers.  Despite steady growth in the use of traffic-calming devices, few guidelines have been established for their construction in the United States.  Design, however, is only one factor in the ultimate success or failure of a traffic-calming measure.  Equally important is careful planning to determine whether the measure is a viable means of improving overall safety and mobility, what impact it may have on street maintenance and emergency vehicles, whether it will be self-enforcing (that is, not require additional policing), and how it will affect surrounding streets and neighborhoods.  All of these issues need to be addressed before implementation; and the early and continuous involvement of adjacent property owners, neighborhood groups, and the relevant city agencies is crucial.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/514484</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SIGN SIMULATOR VALIDATED IN FHWA STUDY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/505922</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Signsim is the sign simulator used by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to evaluate a group of traffic signs that were proposed as national standards.  Based on the simulator results, FHWA made different recommendations for each of the signs to the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices in January 1996.  The committee, however, questioned the validity of Signsim and requested that the system be validated in some manner.  The validation study was performed at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center by recording the detection distances of actual scaled signs in their Photometric and Visibility Laboratory (PVL) and then by comparing the PVL detection distances and the Signsim detection distances to determine if they were significantly different.  The main goal of the Signsim study was to provide recommendations on 13 specific sign types for the next revision of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).  From the original 13 sign types, six were recommended for inclusion in the MUTCD revision.  In the PVL study, four of the six recommended sign types were tested for recognition distances.  Results revealed significant differences between the recognition distances obtained using Signsim and in the PVL for all signs except for the third Dead End sign and the "bike with text" signs.  The recognition distances recorded in Signsim were consistently shorter than those recorded in the PVL. However, the majority of the results compared were similar, if not exactly the same.  It was concluded that Signsim is a reliable laboratory for producing realistic results.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 1999 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/505922</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IMPROVED LIVING QUALITY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY IMPROVED ROAD SAFETY. SPEED WARNING INSTALLATIONS GIVE SPEED OFFENDERS VISUAL INSTRUCTIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/147349</link>
      <description><![CDATA[During the large scale research programme "improved safety in residential areas" the following possible means of controlling traffic are foreseen: (1) speed restrictions, for example, "30 km per hour".  (2) marking the selected area as a "residential area" using a special, non official traffic sign.  (3) the introduction of the rule "right before left" for reducing speed.  (4) speed warning installations.  (5) the introduction of one-way streets, cul-de-sacs and bends on roads to restrict unwanted traffic. (6) partial paving.  (7) alternated parking. (8) the adoption of road marking to indicate pedestrians and for improved directions to pedestrians to use existing or recommended crossings.  The catalogue also includes features given in the Delf model.  The speed warning installations and their connection to automatic traffic control cameras (Avuek) are described in detail.  In approximately 50 towns and districts in North Rhine Westphalia the large scale research experiment is taking place.  In this separate schemes are being tested over a 2 year period under scientific control.  Following this it will be decided considering the results, which schemes are suitable for residential areas to improve both safety and quality of life. /TRRL/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 1980 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/147349</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE STEP STREET</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/103165</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A "STEP STREET" IS THE RESULT OF SPECIAL TREATMENT GIVEN TO A STEEPLY GRADED RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREBY THE ROADWAY IS DEAD-ENDED IN A SWING-AROUND AND THE STREET CONTINUES AS A PEDESTRIAN WAY UP OR DOWN A SERIES OF STAIRWAYS. IN NEW YORK CITY THERE ARE MORE THAN 100 STEP STREETS, OVER 70 OF THEM BEING WITHIN THE COUNTY OF THE BRONX. AN EXAMPLE IS GIVEN OF A REHABILITATION PROJECT RECENTLY COMPLETED ON WEST 256TH STREET WHICH TERMINATES FOR VEHICLES IN A CUL-DE-SAC BUT CONTINUES AS A STAIRWAY TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SYLVAN AVENUE. TO IMPROVE IT WITH A STAIRWAY REQUIRED THE PROVISION OF FOOTINGS AND RETAINING WALLS. GRANITE STEPS WITH A 6-INCH RISE AND 14-INCH TREAD WERE SPECIFIED. TO ACCOMPLISH THE GRADE CHANGE OF 18 FEET, THREE FLIGHTS OF STEPS (8, 12 AND 12 STEPS RESPECTIVELY) WERE BUILT, WITH TWO RESTING PLATFORMS BETWEEN THEM. /AUTHOR/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 1972 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/103165</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HIGHEST COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS RULES OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR CIRCUITY OF TRAVEL WHERE HIS ACCESS TO AN EXISTING ROAD WAS NOT IMPAIRED</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/133668</link>
      <description><![CDATA[THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TOOK A SMALL TRIANGULAR PARCEL OF AN OWNER'S LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAY. PRIOR TO THE TAKING, ALL OF THE OWNER'S LAND HAD ACCESS TO HOWARD ROAD WHICH WAS USED TO REACH KING STREET. AFTER THE TAKING, HOWARD ROAD WAS DEAD ENDED AT THE NEW LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAY AND THE OWNER COULD ONLY REACH KING STREET BY A TOTAL OF SEVERAL MILES OF CIRCUITOUS TRAVEL. HOWEVER, ALTHOUGH A PIECE OF THE OWNER'S LAND WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN FOR THE LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAY, NEITHER THAT TAKING NOR THE PROJECT ITSELF HAD ANY EFFECT UPON THE OWNER'S EASEMENT OF ACCESS TO HOWARD ROAD. THE APPELLATE COURT RULED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TAKING OF ANY ACCESS FROM THE CONDEMNEE AND NO SHOWING OF SPECIAL AND PECULIAR DAMAGE TO HIS REMAINING LAND, THE COMPENSABLE DAMAGE HAD TO BE LIMITED TO THE DIMINUTION, IF ANY, IN THE VALUE OF THAT REMAINING LAND CAUSED BY THE SEPARATION OF THAT AREA.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 1970 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/133668</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>