<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>Shared-Use of Railroad Rights-of-Way</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1641115</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report responds to a provision in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (FAST Act) that directed the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to evaluate passenger and freight rail systems’ shared-use of railroad rights-of-way and the operational, institutional, and legal structures that would best support improvements to the shared-use of the U.S. rail network. Many of these issues reflect over 40 years of federal laws (Appendix A), regulations, and business negotiations among affected parties. Reviewing these parameters helps ensure the U.S. rail system can fulfill the passenger and freight mobility demands of our growing population and economy. To consult with stakeholders as the FAST Act directed, Federal Railroad Administrator Ronald L. Batory asked the Surface Transportation Board (STB), Northeast Corridor (NEC) Commission, State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee, and Amtrak for their input (Appendix B). In addition, Administrator Batory consulted stakeholder associations for their input (Table 1). This report focuses on summary findings from the Congressionally-directed organization outreach.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2019 17:46:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1641115</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EVALUATION OF LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT FOR AUSTIN, TEXAS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271664</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Although rail transit modes have, for several decades, been considered applicable mainly for larger, high-density conurbations, a number of North American cities of lower density and population have begun implementation or serious consideration of light rail as a feasible component of their urban transit networks.  This is due primarily to the typically lower capital characteristics of light rail transit (LRT) and the lower patronage levels that are therefore required for feasibility.  Austin, Texas, is one such smaller city in which, after more than a decade of evaluating LRT, actual implementation at last appears to be nearing reality because of the availability of a newly instituted dedicated funding base.  The process through which these developments have occurred, and the factors involved in determining feasibility, provide some insight into the LRT planning process that may be relevant to other medium-sized urban areas.  This discussion will deal with these issues, focusing on the specifics of the Austin case but with some view to general applicability.  Also of interest is the degree to which private citizens and their organizations have initiated new concepts, maintained public interest in light rail, and interacted with official staff and decision makers in the planning process.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:01:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271664</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TRANSIT, COMMUTER, AND FREIGHT USAGE OF RAIL RIGHTS OF WAY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271034</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Since the 1960s, there has been increasing interest in rail transit as a way to help solve metropolitan transportation problems in the United States.  With this increased interest have come the practical problems of how to weave new routes into the urban fabric in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts and yet, at the same time, provides effective transportation service.  One technique for effectively locating rail transit in urban areas has been to share track and/or right-of-way with railroad lines.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:00:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271034</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NEW VEHICLE OPTIONS FOR LOWER-COST RAIL MOBILITY: USING DIESEL OR DUAL-POWERED LIGHT RAIL CARS AS A TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/577329</link>
      <description><![CDATA[An exciting opportunity exists to transfer innovative transit technology and operating scenarios from Europe to North America. There is a need to demonstrate a range of mobility options using efficient and cost-effective new technologies to maximize the use of available rail rights of way.  The use of a new generation of self-propelled diesel multiple unit cars (DMUs) or dual-powered electric light rail vehicles (LRVs) combined with changes in operations and organization can provide a low-cost way to operate efficient rail service on marginal lines.  Two types of DMUs and two applications of dual-powered LRVs are described, both of which have been demonstrated in North America.  These demonstrations represent commitment by the manufacturer and the operator to seek new solutions from overseas.  Whereas each type of DMU fits a specific niche, they both offer a clear indication of the potential for this type of vehicle.  Also suitable for technology transfer are dual-powered electric light rail cars now used in Karlsruhe and Amsterdam. The Karlsruhe system extends a city tramway system out into the region on standard rail lines.  The Amsterdam operation brings a suburban light rail line into the city center by sharing the existing subway.  Cleveland's Shaker Heights Light Rail Line also reaches the city center by sharing tracks with a rapid transit line.  Each combines the use of existing infrastructure into a cost-effective package.  Planning in New York and Philadelphia includes a potential application of light rail dual-powered technology and track sharing.  Although outside the scope of this study, both Japan and Korea have demonstrated the feasibility of similar track sharing for heavy rail services. Strategies for operating these new vehicle concepts are identified:  (a) track sharing with freight railroads or metros, (b) providing separate time windows for non-FRA-compliant vehicles, (c) FRA compliance, (d) Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, (e) fare collection, and (f) other institutional and labor issues.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/577329</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>DIESEL LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT: NICHE DESCRIPTION AND RATING SYSTEM</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/577330</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The appearance of a new rail car technology, combining the features of the latest in low-floor streetcar design with those of diesel freight railways, makes it possible to consider rail service for passenger flows much lower than generally have been found feasible until now.  With the introduction of any new technology comes the question, What is its role?  It is concluded that the provision of short-haul services--within inner and outer suburbs, and between such places and downtowns--is where the greatest potential lies.  Additional applications are (a) similar services extending beyond the commutershed into the trading hinterland of a city, (b) those catering to cross-radial travel within a central city or region that is not oriented to downtown, and (c) those that may sometimes involve a nonurban region or tourism.  This could be a significant development, as much of the U.S. and Canadian population lives in low-density suburbs or semirural counties, both of which can be expected to continue their dominance of the growth agenda.  One of the advantages of this new family of diesel light rail technology arises from its ability to use existing pathways through cities and towns.  This keeps costs low and avoids the dislocation and environmental problems associated with the taking of large swaths of land required by many solutions.  One way to do this is by using existing railway tracks or rights of way.  Another is to share right-of-way space with a road, either in a streetcar format or on a separate strip.  The results have proven useful in an assessment of freight railway lines in Calgary and Edmonton with respect to their potential for diesel light rail services.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/577330</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IDENTIFICATION AND OPTIMIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE RE-USES FOR PROPOSED RAILROAD ABANDONMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/465328</link>
      <description><![CDATA[There is a need for a state review process whereby alternative uses of railroad branch line abandonments are analyzed.  This report attempts to outline a methodology or process for analyzing such re-uses.  A test set of rail links was run in order to identify the types of problems that might be encountered.  The key element of the report is the description of a mathematical programming methodology which allows for the selection of the optimal set of re-uses, given such things as budgetary constraints.  The algorithm allows for the assimilation, comparison, and selection of large quantities of data which would be manually unmanageable.  Perhaps the state department of transportation's greatest constraint on completing an analysis of the proportions suggested in this report would not be the data handling capabilities, but rather the manpower and budgetary limitations for obtaining data.  Any time a state agency initiates this type of analysis and decision making process regarding use of property, there are bound to be political controversies.  However, in lieu of the traditional do-nothing alternative, such an analysis is sorely needed, and the process described in this report provides sufficient methodology for incorporating the additional weighting of political considerations.  It must be remembered that although particular rail lines are used as examples in this study, the analysis is not of sufficient detail to warrant decisions based on the results of the example problem described herein.  A much more detailed analysis involving all possible rail links should be completed before any determination regarding investments is made.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/465328</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PROPOSED ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY RE-USE ACT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/465329</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report contains proposed legislation dealing with abandoned railroad rights-of-way.  Sections of the proposed act are as follows:  (101) Citation, Legislative Findings, and Statement of Purpose; (102) Definitions; (103) Establishment of Railroad Right-of-Way Re-Use Agency; (104) Agency Planning Function; (105) Agency Participation in Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Abandonment Proceeding; (106) Agency Regulation of Post-Abandonment Uses; (107) Acquisition and Banking of Property Interests in Railroad Rights-of-Way; (108) Miscellaneous Agency Powers and Duties; (109) Severability; and (110) Effective Date.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/465329</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>LIGHT RAIL TRAFFIC MANUAL</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/453963</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The purpose of this manual is to bring together for easy reference the basic signals, signs, symbols, markings and other information related to the operation of light rail systems in a semi-exclusive and a non-exclusive environment. It is intended to assist those involved in the planning, design and operation of light rail systems. Where light rail and heavy rail share a common right-of-way, the traffic control requirements for heavy rail govern. This manual contains current design standards, criteria and policies. Design standards have evolved over a period of many years; consequently, many existing LRT systems do not fully conform with current standards. It is not economically feasible to upgrade entire systems to current standards, however, certain LRT features may be upgraded where it is operationally and cost effective to do so.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/453963</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE UTILIZATION OF EXISTING HIGHWAY &amp; RAILROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR MAGLEV SYSTEMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/457752</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper discusses the right-of-way (ROW) utilization assessment performed in conducting a magnetic levitation (maglev) corridor feasibility study in the Baltimore-Washington, D.C. corridor. This paper identifies key system components that drive the development of corridor alternatives, describes the process used to evaluate alternatives, and draws conclusions about using the existing ROW.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/457752</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT USE OF FREIGHT RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/457830</link>
      <description><![CDATA[During the 1980s and early 1990s, through railroad mergers and consolidations, many less profitable and redundant freight rail services were eliminated, making abandoned rail right-of-way available for other uses.  During this period, light rail transit (LRT) experienced a resurgence in the United States, and LRT operators became interested in abandoned and active freight railroad properties as locations for investment.  The joint use of right-of-way by LRT and freight railroads is an approach being considered for several new light rail projects.  These include the New Jersey Waterfront project, Tampa LRT proposal, expansion of the New Orleans waterfront trolley, and extensions in Denver, Dallas, Sacramento, St. Louis, and elsewhere in the United States.  Issues pertaining to LRT utilization of freight railroad right-of-way are discussed, and successful LRT/freight joint-use experience in Baltimore, Maryland, and San Diego, California, are described.  Regulatory requirements and lessons learned from the transit agencies are reviewed.  Observations and recommendations for further research and study are made.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/457830</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NORTHEAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT. ELECTRIFICATION, NEW HAVEN, CT TO BOSTON, MA. VOLUME 2. LAND USE AND REGULATED AREAS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/406274</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The impacts of extending electrification on the National Railroad Passenger Corporation's (Amtrak) Northeast Corridor (NEC) from New Haven, Connecticut to Boston, Massachusetts are of direct concern to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). To improve rail service and increase ridership between New York and Boston, Amtrak proposes the electrification of the NEC main line between New Haven, CT and Boston, MA using an overhead 2 x 25,000 volt - 60 hertz power system.  This volume consists of maps depicting all areas of study, including the right-of-way (ROW), all facilities sites under consideration, and other adjacent areas that may be affected by project impacts.  These maps also record site specific environmental data for the technical studies including natural, manmade and cultural features.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/406274</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>STRATEGIES TO FACILITATE ACQUISITION AND USE OF RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY BY TRANSIT PROVIDERS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/409883</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This digest contains a report prepared under TCRP Project J-5, "Aspects of Transit and Intermodal Transportation Programs", for which the Transportation Research Board is the agency conducting the research.  Project J-5 is designed to provide insight into the operating practices and legal elements of specific problems in transportation agencies.  The report, which has the same title as this digest and is authored by Kevin M. Sheys, is organized as follows:  Introduction; A Frame of Reference; Common Issues in Rail Transit Projects; Organization of Article; Acquisition and Use Strategies with Willing Sellers (Voluntary Sales--Abandonable Lines, Voluntary Sales--Nonabandonable Lines, and Control of Management and Operations); Acquisition and Use Strategies with Unwilling Sellers; Conclusion; and Notes.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/409883</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A STUDY OF TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES IN THE HOUSTON BELT-TSU RAILROAD CORRIDOR</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/387385</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Railway operations have been discontinued in the Houston Belt and Terminal corridor which traverses southeast Houston and the Texas Southern University campus.  The local transit authority has had several rail alternatives proposed for the corridor. While transit development of the railroad corridor would be expected to improve mobility in near southeast Houston, little effort had been focused on the range of options available for this corridor or the affect the alternatives would have on the Texas Southern University campus.  This study focuses on the assessment of four basic alternatives from the perspective of advantages and utility to the Texas Southern community.  The methodology and recommondations are to provide a basis for discussion for decision makers and a framework for analysis by others examinig potential uses for abandoned railroads.  Energy savings from this project will result with the increase in non-motor accessibility to the Texas Southern University Campus via the recommended alternative.  This application can be extended to other communities in Texas to further encourage alternative pedestrian and bicycle travel.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/387385</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CONDEMNATION - AN ALTERNATIVE MEANS FOR RAILROAD LINE ACQUISITIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/384009</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Within recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in using existing railroad lines and railroad rights-of-way for local commuter train operations.  Purchasing such lines or railroad rights-of-way or simply gaining access to them at times have proved to be arduous and costly undertakings for the communities involved.  The railroads have been accused at times of having exaggerated the need for their lines or inflated the values of their rights-of-way when negotiating for their lease or sale.  This suggests the desirability of considering condemnation as an alternative means of procuring needed railroad lines or railroad rights-of-way for local commuter train operations.  The purpose of this paper is to explore the legal restraints which may limit the availability of condemnation and the precedents that may encourage the use of condemnation powers to facilitate railroad lines or rights-of-way acquisitions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Dec 1993 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/384009</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>URBAN TRANSIT GUIDES APPLICATION OF ADVANCED TRAIN CONTROL</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/380255</link>
      <description><![CDATA[North American railway authorities are concerned about the introduction of processor-based equipment into vital or failsafe functions.  This situation has already been faced in the railway industry abroad, where such controls are steadily being introduced, particularly for intersection interlocking and control.  This paper deals primarily with safety issues for software-based control and communications, giving a review of current practice and providing advice on elements of particular concern.  The concept of relative safety is introduced and the evolution of safety practices through automation is examined in both the railway and mass transit industries.  A system safety process and an approach based on a safety assurance plan are presented, addressing data communications, software developement, testing, and verification.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 1993 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/380255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>