<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>Research on Compiling Method of the Old and New Alternate Passenger Train Diagram</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2581365</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In order to align with the varying demands of market over time and the developmental needs of the railway, there has been a significant increase in the frequency and scale of adjustments to the train diagram. The old and new alternate passenger train diagram represents a dynamic operational plan that synergizes the operation of trains with the utilization of rolling stock during alternate periods. This paper introduces an integrated cooperative optimization time–space network for the new and old alternate train diagrams. It treats the utilization of rolling stock during alternate periods and resolution of conflicts between the old and new routes as a unified description of the optimization problem for the operation paths of passenger train stock in the spatio-temporal network of alternate periods. Building upon this, we set the objective as the cost of rolling stock utilization during alternate periods, with rolling stock utilization rules and train running intervals as constraints. And then we establish a comprehensive cooperative optimization 0–1 integer planning model and design a Lagrangian heuristic algorithm.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:28:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2581365</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Concept of Rules and Recommendations for Riding Shared and Private E-Scooters in the Road Network in the Light of Global Problems</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1972743</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The work was dedicated to the topic of riding e-scooters in urban transport systems. These kind of new mobility solution is becoming more and more popular in the case of shared mobility operators and also the new social trend. It has been noticed by the authors that the appearance of a large number of e-scooters in urban traffic conditions, has caused many problems related to safety and legal issues. That problems occur in issues related to moving and park e-scooters on the streets, intersections as well as pavements. Because of that fact, the authors tried to indicate conditions for flowing movement of e-scooters in the city. The aim of the work was to present the concept of rules and recommendations for riding individual and shared e-scooters in the road network. In addition, the text also gives global examples of how e-scooters operate in urban transport systems.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2024 09:28:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1972743</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>From Formula One to Autonomous One: History, Achievements, and Future Perspectives</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2190029</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This letter is the first report from a series of IEEE TIV's Decentralized and Hybrid Workshops (DHWs) on Intelligent Vehicles for Education (IV4E). The role of intelligent vehicles in promoting education for all ages through autonomous racing was discussed during a recent DHW. Over the past decade, autonomous racing has emerged due to advancements in self-driving technologies. While still focused on extreme speed, autonomous racing differs from conventional automobile racing in its development philosophy, as human drivers are no longer involved. The absence of human drivers should be regarded as a new chance to increase competitiveness and entertainment value. This letter discusses opportunities to promote education-oriented autonomous racing. Recall that the flagship car race is Formula 1, where “formula” denotes technical restrictions that should be satisfied strictly. The authors name the new race series Autonomous 1 or A1, leveraging the power of autonomous intelligence in education. The achievements made in Formula 1 and typical autonomous races are reviewed, followed by discussions about A1’s future perspectives. Specifically, A1 needs to maintain race consistency, update rules, and provide personalized commentary to support all-age education.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2024 16:14:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2190029</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Reducing Major Rule Violations in Commuter Rail Operations: Distraction and its Mitigation with Sustained Attention Training</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1436789</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Commuter rail accidents demonstrate the need to better understand how operator distraction affects rail safety. Veolia Transportation Services conducted two experiments in the Cab Technology Integration Laboratory (CTIL) using animated operating scenarios that were designed to simulate elements of distraction. In Study I, operational scenarios varied in task load, from baseline to low, and then to high load. The scenarios created operator distraction in locomotive engineers by means of task-load variation, which impacted both locomotive engineer performance and mental workload. Study II examined the ability of 3 hours of Sustained Attention Training (SAT) to mitigate distraction in a group of engineers. There were no statistically significant effects of SAT on any measure. However, there were trends indicating that SAT increased locomotive operator rule compliance compared to a control group that received no training. That these effects of SAT, though not statistically significant, were found consistently in the low task load condition, suggests that errors under this condition may reflect periodic lapses in attention associated with mind wandering or mental rumination. Future studies on mitigating distraction would be warranted with a larger sample of locomotive engineers and longer duration SAT.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:27:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1436789</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Checking the European Railways Traffic Management System (ERTMS) Operating Rules Using UML and the B Method</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1339900</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Interoperability is a critical factor for cost cutting and to increase performance in European railway exchanges. The European Railways Traffic Management System (ERTMS), which is both a specification and a technological framework, aimed at providing an answer to the above interoperability needs. Considering the implementation of ERTMS in a particular national context, operating rules must be compliant with the ERTMS specification, whereas the whole system has to provide some safety properties. Moreover, the management of railway signalling in ERTMS is based on \“not on board rules” pertaining to each country and not on global rules. In consequence, it is difficult to evaluate the system in terms of safety. Thus, one of the main purposes of this study is to supply methodological tools for the evaluation of the global consistency between the specification and the operating rules, with regard to safety. This issue is crucial and yet it has scarcely been covered by scientific literature.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:27:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1339900</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FRA Is Nearing Completion of Rules Required by the Rail Safety Improvement Act, But Needs to Improve Oversight</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1250031</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In response to several high profile accidents between 2002 and 2008 that resulted in hundreds of casualties and millions of dollars in damages, Congress passed the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) of 2008. For example, a 2005 collision—between two freight trains in Graniteville, SC—resulted in the release of chlorine gas from a tank car. The accident killed 9 people, required the evacuation of 5,400 others, and caused over $6.9 million in damages. In September 2008, the collision of a commuter train and a freight train in Chatsworth, CA, resulted in 25 deaths, 125 injuries, and over $12 million in damages. RSIA—the first statute in almost 15 years that reauthorizes the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) safety programs—requires FRA to undertake several wide-ranging tasks that broaden its safety-related responsibilities while it continues to meet its pre-existing responsibilities. Among these new responsibilities are requirements that FRA promulgate 17 rules to improve railroad safety. Because of this significant increase in the Agency’s rail safety responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviewed FRA’s implementation and oversight of the new safety rules. OIG's objectives were to assess FRA’s: (1) progress in completing the RSIA-required rules; and (2) ability to ensure compliance with the new rules. Briefly, FRA has issued 8 of the 17 RSIA-required rules and has made progress on finalizing the remaining 9. However, the Agency issued seven of the eight after their statutory deadlines, and has missed the deadlines for six of the remaining nine. Weaknesses in FRA’s planning for its rulemaking work delayed rule issuance. While FRA focused its early efforts almost entirely on the rule on positive train control (PTC), Agency officials did not establish priorities for work on the other rules. Delayed promulgation of RSIA-required rules delays the mitigation of railroad industry safety hazards that Congress intended the rules to address. FRA did not provide its oversight staff with the guidance, training, and supervision required to oversee compliance with certain RSIA rules. The Agency did not update its compliance manuals to reflect new rules before beginning oversight of five new rules—PTC, electronic recordkeeping for hours of service, concrete crossties, bridge safety standards, and camp car health and safety. Furthermore, FRA staff reported that they received insufficient training to oversee compliance with the PTC, camp car health and safety standards, and electronic recordkeeping rules. Finally, FRA has not defined what constitutes adequate supervisory review, and does not require documentation of supervisory reviews. As a result, supervisory review of safety oversight work has been limited and inconsistent.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:04:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1250031</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Reducing Major Rule Violations in Commuter Rail Operations: The Role of Distraction and Attentional Errors</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1239302</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Accidents in commuter rail operations and the analyses of rule violations have highlighted the need for a better understanding of the role that distraction and attentional errors play. Distracted driving has thoroughly been studied in recent years, but distraction during rail operations has been  less examined. This paper presents four speakers who will examine different aspects of the distraction issue. The topics will include a systems analysis of rail operations, analysis of rule violations and surveys of locomotive engineers, description of a high-fidelity rail simulator, and results from a two-part study using this simulator to examine distraction and attentional errors in commuter rail operations. Implications of the findings for reducing major rule violations and improving the safety of rail operations will also be discussed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:03:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1239302</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Technical and Environmental Aspects of Shipboard Incinerators Design</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1101496</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The main aim of this article is to present and to clarify some details of shipboard incinerators and to show how to satisfy their basic design requirements. In this sense, technical and ecological aspects for the design and construction of shipboard incinerators are described. In scope of this, operating requirements are discussed that have to be satisfied in order to accomplish the efficient thermal destruction of wastes. Incinerators considered are those intended for thermal destruction of garbage and other shipboard wastes generated during the ship’s normal service, with capacities up to 1500 kW and without the flue gas heat recovery. Calculations are presented that are derived for the case of a typical ship’s waste classification according to IIA (Incinerator Institute of America). Results of a case calculation for the incinerator capacity of 80 kg/h of liquid and solid ship’s waste are presented, too.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 07:08:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1101496</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What's stopping public safety agencies from operating UAS?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/986706</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Subtitle: As public officials, why can't we operate unmanned aircraft systems under the same rules as public aircraft?]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:41:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/986706</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Corporate Culture, Compliance and Railroad Operating Rules: Results of A Focus Group and Instructed Interviews</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/968125</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A focus group was held at the 1996 Bi-annualOperating Rules Association meeting of North American railroads to discuss the general issue of compliance and operating rules. Twelve operating rules officers participated, representing Class I, II, and III railroads. Individual structured interviews were also conducted both prior to and following the focus group session to discuss general issues surrounding operating rules, and to provide follow-up information to major findings from the focus group session. Focus group participants generally reported that senior management tends to emphasize productivity over safety, suggesting some railroads may have created an organizational culture that unintentionally encourages operating rules violations. Follow-up interviews with a number of industry representatives supported this view. Some interviewees suggested railroad mergers often result in discordant management philosophies within the same organization, directly influencing corporate culture and how operating rules officers enforce rules compliance. Findings for each of the five focus group questions are categorized by type of response. Specific recommendations for structural change and follow-on work are also discussed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:20:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/968125</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Honest mistakes, reporting and just culture</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/916720</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Subtitle: Captain Martin Alder explains why a just system is needed if we are to make any steps forward in flight safety.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 08:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/916720</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Environmental partnering between transportation agencies and resource agencies</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/865389</link>
      <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:23:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/865389</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Impact of Participatory Safety Rules Revision on Incident Rates, Liability Claims, and Safety Culture in the U.S. Railroad Industry</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/855789</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Railroad Administration Human Factors Research and Development Program sponsored a lessons learned study to examine the impact of safety rules revision on safety culture, incident rates, and liability claims in the railroad industry. Safety rules revision identifies key rules that are universally enforceable and eliminates unnecessary and conflicting rules. The process also seeks to promote improvements in safety culture through labor-management collaboration by including a shift in primary responsibility for rules creation from management to front-line workers. In this study, the evaluation team reviewed relevant literature, interviewed key participants (management and labor) from transportation carriers that had undertaken safety rules revision, and analyzed relevant incident and injury data. Although outcome data were statistically inconclusive, a number of other indicators in this study suggested a positive benefit on carriers that used the process. Interviewees reported more enforceable safety rules, increased compliance, and overall improvements in several aspects of safety culture, such as labor-management relations. Moreover, some carriers reported significant reductions in the number of claims related to the Federal Employer’s Liability Act and the cost per claim. This report examines other potential benefits, challenges, and successful implementation strategies, as well as future directions and activities.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:30:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/855789</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Measuring Safety Culture in a Research and Development Centre: A Comparison of Two Methods in the Air Traffic Management Domain</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/811634</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper describes two safety surveys carried out in an Air Traffic Management Research and Development centre (EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre). The paper discusses the differences and similarities between the two tools with regard to their development, the method of conducting the surveys, the results and their implications. It has been estimated that about 50% to 60% of accidents and incidents appear to have their roots in the design and development process, and since this is the core business of the EEC, it was deemed necessary to investigate the maturity of safety at the EEC. The challenge for the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC) was to develop a tool that is relevant to a research and development environment with the objectives of (i) identifying areas of weakness in the safety culture of the organization (ii) helping in developing a Safety Management System. The first objective was addressed by developing a Safety Culture Survey (SCS) tool and surveying the EEC (March, 2003). The second objective was addressed by customizing an existing (SMS) survey tool (RD) for the R&D environment. The SCS is based on traditional measures adapted to ATM and then to R&D, and the River Diagram (RD) is more of a safety management survey, adapted from other industries and already applied to HQ (EUROCONTROL Head Quarters) to examine their commitment to safety. Nevertheless, the two surveys have been compared to see where they agree and where they `dissociate'. Overall, the SCS has a broader focus on "softer issues", i.e. more complex issues of `trust in management'. Diagnostically, the River Diagram survey helps the practitioner develop SMS implementation plans more readily than the Safety Culture survey.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:02:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/811634</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The UAV and the current and future regulatory construct for integration into the National Airspace System</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/807395</link>
      <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2007 13:22:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/807395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>