<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>What Drives Decisions of Single-Occupant Travelers in High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes? Investigation Using Archived Traffic and Tolling Data from MnPASS Express Lanes</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/910555</link>
      <description><![CDATA[High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes are in operation, under construction, and planned in several major metropolitan areas. The premise behind HOT lanes is to allow single-occupant vehicles (SOVs) to access high-occupancy vehicle lanes (and a higher level of service) if they are willing to pay a toll. To maintain a high level of service in the HOT lanes, the toll rate is set dynamically to restrict the number of SOVs that access the facility lanes as they near capacity. Thus, HOT facilities provide operators of transportation systems with an additional tool: pricing. To use pricing effectively, it is critical for those operators to understand how drivers behave when faced with a set of traffic conditions and toll levels. This paper presents the results of an empirical investigation into the relationship between toll rate, traffic conditions, and SOV driver behavior, on the basis of data from the dynamically tolled I-394 HOT facility in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Analysis of the empirical data indicated that a large percentage of SOV drivers used the HOT lanes at different, yet predictable, rates throughout the morning peak period, even when there was no clear travel time advantage. After these users were accounted for, it was determined that the remaining SOV drivers used the HOT lanes at greater rates when the cost per hour of commute time saved was lowest. A model was developed that incorporates both of these findings, predicting HOT lane usage rates based on time savings, time of day, and toll rates, with an R² value of .684.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:14:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/910555</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE COSTS OF REDUCING DRIVING TO WORK: RESULTS OF CHICAGO AREA DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/504920</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A series of employee trip reduction demonstration projects were organized by the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) which is the metropolitan planning organization in the Chicago area. These projects were in response to the trip reduction mandates contained in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The information in this paper was developed as part of an independent evaluation of each of the demonstration projects. The primary source of data for this evaluation was a series of interviews conducted with Program Administrators and/or Employee Trip Coordinators at each organization participating in the demonstration. These were the individuals at each organization responsible for implementation of the trip reduction program. Major findings of the paper include that factory work settings tend to have solo driving rates in the 70 to 75 percent range while suburban offices "naturally" have rates above 85 to 90 percent. The average demonstration organization was able to reduce solo driving rates by 5.5 percentage points.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/504920</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ALONE IN THE CAR</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/413942</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Public transportation now controls huge blocks of public funds. But relatively few Americans are willing to use alternatives to the one-person car, and the market for these alternatives seems to be shrinking. The proportion of workers who use mass transit declined from 6 percent to 5 percent during the 1980s; the proportion who use ride-sharing arrangements fell from 20 percent to 13 percent. The reasons have to do with economics, demographics, urban sprawl, and the passion Americans feel for their wheels.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/413942</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>COMMUTING STRESS, RIDESHARING, AND GENDER: ANALYSES FROM THE 1993 STATE OF THE COMMUTE STUDY IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/389598</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A stressful nature of exposure to traffic congestion in automobile commuting has been demonstrated in previous quasi-experimental research that has been measurement-intensive but conducted with relatively small samples.  The present study examined commuting stress in automobile travel with a large representative sample (N=2591) in southern California through telephone survey.  Commuting stress was found to be significantly associated with distance and duration of the commute, controlling for age and income.  As predicted, the stressful effects of long distance commutes (> 20 miles) were further moderated by gender, as women in such commutes perceive much greater commuting stress spillover to work and home.  Some hypothesized stress-mitigating effects of ridesharing were found, as full-time ridesharers were significantly less bothered by traffic congestion and more satisfied with their commutes than solo drivers.  In analyses of prospective adoption by solo drivers of alternative commuting modes, it was found that the perception of one's commute as having a negative impact on family life had a very significant effect on the inclination to try carpooling and train/rail, beyond the effect associated with distance itself.  Commuting stress is discussed as an external cost of traffic congestion that is internalized by the solo driver.  Marketing strategies for alternative modes of commuting might increase their effectiveness by highlighting stress consequences, especially negative impacts on family life.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/389598</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>DIFFICULTIES WITH THE EASY RIDE PROJECT: OBSTACLES TO VOLUNTARY RIDESHARING IN THE SUBURBS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/365420</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The example of a recent ridesharing demonstration project in Bellevue, Washington, is used to explore how money, convenience, and time costs influence the commute mode decision in low-density office parks.  Commuters perceived that driving alone was low cost and ridesharing was high cost.  The Easy Ride project attempted to lower the perceived costs of ridesharing and transit.  Key features of the Easy Ride project were area-wide transportation coordinators who offered personalized commuter assistance; an intensive marketing campaign; vanpool discounts; and taxi rides home for ridesharers who missed their ride.  Despite Easy Ride attempts to lower the perveived cost of ridesharing, most project sites exhibited no measurable change in mode split over 2 years' time.  But Easy Ride also found that imposing costs on solo drivers can have a dramatic effect on mode split.  The report concludes that the most effective approach to increasing ridesharing and transit rates may be to raise the cost of driving alone while at the same time offering incentives that lower the costs of ridesharing.  But regulating suburban employers in order to impose costs on suburban drivers is politically difficult.  Until such costs can be imposed, public agencies have little choice but to pursue voluntary ridesharing programs to control traffic congestion.  However, to increase ridesharing and transit use significantly, the incentives of voluntary programs may have to be substantial.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1992 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/365420</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EFFECTS OF VARIABLE WORK HOUR PROGRAMS ON RIDESHARING AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: A CASE STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/365425</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Commuter Transportation Services, Inc., conducted a 6-month pilot project to determine the impact of variable work hour schedules on ridesharing and organizational effectiveness in Ventura County.  The results of the study revealed a significant relationship between ridesharing and the implementation of the variable work hour programs.  At the 6-month juncture, ridesharing rates had increased from 8 to 113% and the cost of driving alone had decreased from 82% to 77%.  Chi-square results indicated a significant decrease in commute time for participants.  When considering the results of the variable work hour program on the individual and the organization, the results of the study reveal positive relationships between participation and self-reported increases in productivity, job satisfaction, satisfaction with schedule, morale, and ability to facilitate child care. Supervisor responses indicated similar, positive changes with respect to productivity and job satisfaction. Chi-square analysis revealed that participants on the 4/40 schedule had the largest increases in productivity, job satisfaction, and satisfaction with schedule; participants on the flex-time schedule reported more convenience facilitating child care.  The results of this study have positive implications for the use of variable work hour schedules, which can be an effective strategy for increasing ridesharing and for improving organizational effectiveness.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1992 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/365425</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE COASTAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ORDINANCE IN LOS ANGELES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/352806</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Coastal Transportation Corridor Ordinance attempts to regulate traffic congestion in a busy Los Angeles community by requiring new real estate developments to mitigate future trips and to contribute to a trust fund for improving traffic flow within the affected area.  To conduct a preliminary evaluation of the trip reduction portion of the ordinance, a sample of eight buildings housing 117 firms was selected.  Three buildings housing 44 firms were sugject to the ordinance, and a control group of five buildings housing 73 firms was not affected by the ordinance.  Differences in ridesharing facilities, services, and subsidies were observed, and 1,216 workers in the two groups of buildings were surveyed to determine their travel patterns.  The results show that developers affected by the ordinance are significantly more likely to include preferential parking for carpoolers in their projects and some bicycle parking facilities as well.  The companies affected by the ordinance offer a substantially smaller proportion of their employees free parking at work, and, among employees who pay to park, those in the buildings covered by the ordinance pay higher rates.  The provision of these facilities and the combination of parking fees and other promotional efforts have had a very small initial effect on workers' decisions to drive to work alone.  The proportion of workers driving to work alone is similar in the experimental and control groups.  Although twice as many workers in buildings affected by the ordinance carpooled to work, they were a small fraction of the workforce.  A sizable proportion of workers in the study area generally leave work outside the peak period, probably to avoid late-afternoon congestion.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 31 Mar 1991 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/352806</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>COMPARISON OF TRAVEL BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDES OF RIDESHARERS, SOLO DRIVERS, AND THE GENERAL COMMUTER POPULATION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/352859</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Research related to factors influencing an individual's propensity to carpool or vanpool is briefly reviewed to provide background for the findings of a survey of the general commuting population of suburban Orange County, California.  The findings are presented as they relate to three groups of commuters:  ridesharers, solo drivers, and the general commuting population.  Comparisons between the survey's findings and previous research are made.  Among the key findings was that travel time was the most important mode selection factor for all three groups.  Whereas the availability of a car at work was the second most important factor for commuters in general and solo drivers, ridesharers rated commuting costs as the second most important factor.  Ridesharers were more likely than solo drivers to believe that high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes encourage ridesharing, and there was more support among ridesharers than solo drivers for a sales tax increase to build HOV lanes.  The general commuter survey results support the previous findings with regard to the role of travel time and distance in commute mode choice: ridesharers commute for longer time and distances than either solo drivers or the general commuting public. Support was also provided for the role of parking cost and availability.  Comparisons were also made between the data base of matchlist applicants of the regional commute management agency and the general commuting population.  The commute distances of commuters completing applications for ridesharing matchlists were more like those of current ridesharers than the general commuting public or solo drivers.  Also, the proportion of matchlist applicants currently ridesharing was larger than that of the general commuting public.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 31 Mar 1991 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/352859</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PARKING MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION IN SIX CITIES: IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL POLICY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/308670</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Local jurisdictions are using parking management and traffic mitigation policies to discourage solo driving and encourage transit, ridesharing, cycling, and other alternatives to solo driving.  This paper focuses on selected policies in six cities, including parking code requirements, encouragements for fringe or peripheral parking, preferential parking for carpoolers, and requirements on new office developments (e.g., through developer agreements) for owner-sponsored traffic mitigations.  Included in the review is a synopsis of literature on peripheral parking as several of the cities surveyed are planning or implementing this strategy.  The review examines the status of current parking management and traffic mitigation policies and issues of implementation and effectiveness; then it draws policy implications for localities.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 1990 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/308670</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PARKING COST AND MODE CHOICES AMONG DOWNTOWN WORKERS: A CASE STUDY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/282570</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Two downtown companies were compared in an effort to clarify the relationship between mode choice in the journey to work and employers' policies regarding the subsidization of their workers' parking costs.  The two firms were located at the same site, and their employees had access to the same parking facilities.  One company provided a partial parking subsidy to about one-third of its employees and no financial assistance to ridesharers or those who commuted by transit. The other firm had a more complex system of subsidies to its employees, providing varying levels of support for solo drivers, carpoolers, vanpoolers, and transit riders. Despite the differences in their commuter subsidy programs, the proportion of employees commuting to work by solo driving was about the same in the two companies.  The elaborate subsidy program of the second company resulted primarily in a shift of commuters from transit to carpooling and vanpooling.  The second company also spent a great deal more money than the first on the promotion of ridesharing, yet the bulk of its commuter subsidy was expended on paying the parking costs of solo drivers.  This countered the effectiveness of its efforts to promote ridesharing and transit use.  These findings add to the growing body of literature that shows that it is more cost-effective to promote ridesharing and transit use by eliminating parking subsidies to solo drivers than it is to offer additional subsidies to transit users and ridesharers in a firm that already subsidizes the parking of solo drivers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 1988 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/282570</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A RIDESHARING MARKET ANALYSIS SURVEY OF COMMUTER ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR AT A MAJOR SUBURBAN EMPLOYMENT CENTER</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/282572</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This survey was part of a project to prepare a transportation systems management plan for the Irvine Business Complex (IBC), a developing, suburban employment center 50 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.  Because manufacturing and warehousing employees were undersampled, there may be some bias in the survey results.  About 90 percent of the respondents were driving to work alone.  The average commuting distance was 12 miles one way.  Average commuting time was about 30 minutes, each way.  The trip-length distribution was quite similar to that of the Los Angeles region.  More than three-quarters of the commuters started work between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m.  About 60 percent left between 4:00 and 5:30 p.m.  Only 12 percent of this white collar work force had schedule flexibility of more than 30 min.  Almost two-thirds felt that commute traffic was growing worse.  Free parking was enjoyed by 94 percent of respondents; parking was abundant.  The average duration of employment in the IBC was almost 3 years.  More than two-thirds of the survey respondents were female.  The five most common reasons cited for not ridesharing were (a) Prefer freedom of driving alone (45 percent); (b) Might need car due to overtime (42 percent); (c) Need car for business (32 percent); (d) Run other errands en route (30 percent); and (e) Irregular working hours (26 percent). However, 41 percent of the solo drivers expressed positive attitudes toward using some other commute mode, and 11 percent requested ridesharing information.  Combining ridesharing with the other demand management techniques of parking management, work rescheduling, and telecommuting, the market shares of which are harder to quantify, the maximum potential market share or participation rate will likely be between one-half and two-thirds of all IBC commuters.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 1988 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/282572</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SAFEGUARDING SUBURBAN MOBILITY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/288450</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The suburban office boom of the past decade has flooded the outskirts of many metropolitan areas with unprecedented traffic, leading to major tie-ups that previously afflicted only downtown motorists. Some have forewarned that suburban congestion could become the dominant transportation issue in the late 1980s and 1990s. The congestion threat posed by rapid office growth on the metropolitan fringes is examined in this paper. The focus is on the roles of design, land use, and transportation management toward safeguarding suburban mobility. A national survey showed that extremely low densities and detached designs have rendered many new suburban office parks almost entirely dependent on the automobile. The absence of onsite consumer services, such as restaurants, as well as gross imbalances in the siting of jobs and housing along most suburban corridors have further reinforced workers' preferences for solo commuting. Some private-sector initiatives have been encouraging, notably ridesharing incentive programs, flextime work schedules, and cofinancing of needed infrastructure. Ordinances requiring developers to introduce such programs have also been enacted in several places around the country. Overcoming numerous institutional and logistical obstacles to traffic management in suburbia, however, remains a lofty, though not insurmountable, challenge.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 1987 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/288450</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EFFECTS OF ENDING EMPLOYER-PAID PARKING FOR SOLO DRIVERS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/210601</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The change in employee travel choices at a company in Los Angeles that ended employer-paid parking for solo drivers who do not use their cars at work is documented. The modal split among affected employees changed in the following ways: solo driving fell from 42 to 8 percent, carpooling rose from 17 to 58 percent; and bus ridership declined from 38 to 28 percent.  There was no change in the modal split at a nearby comparison company that continued to offer free parking to all employees.  It is concluded that ending employer-paid parking for solo drivers significantly influenced employees' modal choices.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 30 Jun 1985 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/210601</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TRAFFIC RESTRAINT ON NEW YORK CITY'S EAST RIVER BRIDGES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/210605</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The analysis of traffic impacts associated with the New York City Department of Transportation's 1980 proposed morning peakperiod driver-only ban on the four East River bridges is summarized. The ban would involve some 25,000 out of the 94,000 vehicles that enter Manhattan from 6:00 to 10:00 a.m. on the four free and three toll East River crossings. Its goal was to manage capacity consistent with transportation, economic, and air quality objectives. Driver-only cars occupy about half of all Manhattan-bound road space between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m., yet they carry less than 25 percent of the people. The traffic impact analysis considered likely changes in where, when, and how people travel. The changes were based on the equilibrium condition that would occur as traffic continually redistributes to where there is capacity. The analysis indicated that about 65 percent of the 25,000 driver-only cars on the free bridges would be diverted to toll crossings. The remaining 35 percent would be distributed in a variety of other ways. Under equilibrium conditions it is expected that queues would dissipate by 10:30 a.m. on both the Midtown Tunnel and Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (currently, queues last until about 9:00 a.m. on the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel and 10:00 a.m. on the Midtown Tunnel). These estimates assume that the reversible lanes would be available on both of these facilities by 6:00 a.m. A contraflow bus lane on the approach to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel was implemented during 1980 as a traffic management complement. However, the ban was not allowed by the state court. The community and court response suggests that implementing such automobile-restraint measures will be a difficult task in U.S. cities.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 30 Jun 1985 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/210605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>