<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>Public Transport and People with Disabilities - the Experiences of Non-users</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1442647</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Society should be designed so that its infrastructure is accessible to all, as much as possible without special solutions and despite differences in level of functioning, to the point where disabilities are rendered irrelevant. Universal design or accessibility for all is high on the agenda in Norway, but despite years of focus on design in public transport, it seems that the number of people with disabilities actually using it has not increased significantly. The aim of this paper is to add to the knowledge of why non-users with disabilities refrain from travelling by public transport. The authors' research question is: “Why do people with impairments avoid travelling by public transport even when it is readily accessible, and are there any further measures that could lead to improvements?” The authors conducted a review of the literature while trying to find studies with a similar scope, but only one with a focus specifically on non-users was found. Most others focused on the issues faced by people with impairments who do travel. Based on the literature review, the authors made certain assumptions which were tested in qualitative studies on people with impairments who seldom or never travel by public transport. These were: 1) that insecurity and expectations lead to seldom or non-use of public transport; 2) that the triggering factors causing seldom or non-use of public transport are different from the issues that users experience; 3) that lack of knowledge among (and help from) drivers and personnel is a considerable barrier to non-use; 4) that a ‘travel buddy’ might help increase the use of public transport among non-users; and 5) that some impaired people do not use public transport because they have alternatives that work better for them in everyday life. The authors conducted in-depth interviews of 14 participants in and around the Oslo area, followed by ‘participatory travel observation’ with those who were comfortable travelling with the authors (six in total). This was voluntary, as it was expected that non-users would not want to participate in the study if they thought it meant they would have to travel by public transport. This is thus a preliminary and explorative study aimed at scratching the surface of some of the issues non-users experience. The findings indicate that insecurity while travelling on public transport and expectations that problems will be encountered along the way are significant barriers to non-use. For many with deficits, it is the sum of all these challenges combined, real or anticipated, that leads to them refraining from using public transport. The findings also point to a 'travel buddy' as a measure that might encourage some non-users to use public transport more often and help make actual availability of the system more visible. Finally, the authors question whether universal design is the solution, or whether individualized solutions provide a sense of freedom, of participation in working life and of value added in society among those who do not have physical and/or mental premises for travelling by public transport.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:50:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1442647</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Study on Preference of Information According to Public Transit User Classes</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/908414</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Currently, such efforts have failed to satisfy requests from users because current unidirectional information is operator-oriented and employs uniform methods that do not reflect individual requirements. The objective of this study is to examine information necessary according to each class of traffic for users of public transportation to incorporate individual user characteristics and conduct a fundamental survey for establishing a user-tailored public transformation information strategy that allows users to receive information of their choice regardless of time and place.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:08:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/908414</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Investigating Consistency in Transit Passenger Arrivals: Insights from Longitudinal Automated Fare Collection Data</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/847633</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Waiting for public transit is recognized as being more onerous than travel time itself. Previous research established that transit passengers in one group “target” their arrival at a time shortly before the service is scheduled. Another group of passengers, seemingly unaffected by timetable schedules, arrives randomly. The time of day plus transit service characteristics, such as headway and reliability, affects the split of passengers between these groups. Little is known about the longitudinal aspects of the nonrandom arrival behavior. This paper assesses the day-to-day consistency of transit users’ arrival behavior by analyzing the longitudinal automated fare collection system data for heavy rail services in Melbourne, Australia. It makes further distinctions between transit users that have until now been categorized into random or nonrandom arrival behavior. Four archetypal arrival behaviors are derived. Consistency of arrival behavior is quantified and investigated. Heterogeneity is an overriding feature of transit commuters’ longitudinal behavior. Transit users exhibiting a greater amount of consistency are found to arrive closer to the transit’s time-tabled time, use fewer scheduled services, and travel earlier in the peak. A systematic difference in arrival behavior is found for users of a terminus station.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:58:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/847633</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Impact of congestion charging on the transit market: An inter-modal equilibrium model</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/810151</link>
      <description><![CDATA[An inter-modal equilibrium model links an urban road network subject to a congestion charge to a parallel urban transit market, with a view to finding the optimum congestion charge consistent with the commercial decisions of the transit operator(s). A congestion charge is set to maximise social surplus. Travel behaviour is assumed to conform to elastic-demand user equilibrium traffic assignment. The transit market is assumed to be either a profit maximising monopoly or a profit maximising duopoly competing non-cooperatively. The operator(s) set the fares to maximise profits and the supply of transit services are determined by the resulting demand. The problem has been formulated as a bi-level programme with the determination of the congestion charge on the upper level and the setting of transit fares on the lower level. In the case of non-cooperating operators, the Bertrand-Nash equilibrium fares are sought. The results of the model are analysed for a small example based loosely on Edinburgh. This reveals the importance of competition in the transit market for the trade off between the government, the transit provider(s) and the travellers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:27:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/810151</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Case Study: Relationship of Walk Access Distance to Transit with Service, Travel, and Personal Characteristics</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/810842</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper explores the relationship between walk access distance to transit and various characteristics of the transit service and transit users in the city of Toronto, Canada. The data used in this study included individual records of transit trips made in the morning peak period (6-9 a.m.) on a regular week day. The results show that the dense transit route network in the downtown area results in lower walk access distances than in other parts of the city. Also, dwelling type of the household, number of vehicles available in the household, and transit service frequency show a noteworthy relationship with access distance in Toronto. In general, it was found that around 60% of transit users in Toronto live within the transit service area of 300 m airline distance assumed by the transit service provider. These results indicate that people in Toronto are willing to walk further to access transit than assumed existing standards for transit service areas.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:27:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/810842</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>San Diego, California, Trolley's New Green Line: Early Success for Distinctive Service</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/801854</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In July 2005, San Diego, California, Trolley officials and riders celebrated completion of the light rail system’s eighth extension. The 6-mi (9.7-km) Mission Valley East project closed the gap in the 53-mi (85.3-km) system and provided service to San Diego State University (SDSU). The project allowed for the introduction of the 19-mi (30.6-km) Green Line, which operates between Old Town and Santee on existing, new, and shared tracks. The Green Line is distinctive in a number of ways. It is a nonradial corridor that does not serve downtown San Diego. It directly serves the 35,000-student SDSU campus and surrounding community through the system’s first tunnel and underground station. In addition, the line links a variety of regional activity centers along Mission Valley’s intense residential and employment corridor. In fall 2005, the Metropolitan Transit System and the San Diego Association of Governments conducted two surveys and a passenger count to help understand more about who rides the Green Line, why they ride it, and where they are going. Survey results indicate that the Green Line has changed the composition and riding habits of transit users, resulting in high proportions of school trips, increased frequency of transit use, high numbers of choice riders, and high percentages of prepaid fare use. The Green Line has increased transit trips at SDSU by over 350%. The surveys also prompted plans for improvements, including operating later night service, pursuing station modifications that would allow the Green Line to extend into downtown, and considering partnerships with SDSU to expand the college semester pass program.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2007 08:27:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/801854</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Relationship of Attitudes Toward Road and Transit Capital Investments and Propensity to Ride Transit Given Traveler Information</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/802723</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In the 2005 Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey, close to 56% of respondents were likely or extremely likely to support road construction and maintenance projects. On the other hand, about 65% of respondents were likely to support public transportation projects. In this paper, we use attitudinal survey-based data from the Chicago metropolitan area to explore the relationship between people's attitudes towards capital investment in transportation and their transit use. We are particularly interested in relationships that might exist between these attitudes and travelers' propensity to increase the use of transit, when they are given real-time transit information. We use bivariate probit models to model the propensity of users to increase transit use when presented with real-time traveler information. In this modeling framework, the traveler's current level of transit use and attitude towards greater use of transit when presented with real-time traveler information, are considered to be endogenous. We find that respondents who support road maintenance projects would consider increasing transit use given transit traveler information, even though they might not necessarily be current transit users. The same trend holds for public transit expansion and maintenance, i.e., those respondents who are concerned with the state of the public transit system and support its maintenance would significantly increase transit use if suitable real-time travel information were available. Based on the models, other factors, which significantly affect the propensity of riders to use transit more in the presence of traveler information, include respondent's age, residence, car accessibility, educational level and safety concerns.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 10:27:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/802723</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A User Interface for the Representation of the Dynamic Results on the Pantograph-Catenary Interactions</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/792713</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A user-friendly environment for the representation of the dynamic results on the pantograph-catenary interactions is presented in this paper. This environment consists of an interactive interface for the representation of graphics and another for the representation of video. By means of the first interface for the representation of graphics, the user can interact with the different graphic representations obtained starting from the data generated by the dynamic calculation of catenaries. The objective of the second interface is to generate a video containing the simulation of the interaction between the pantograph and the catenary. The video sequence, generated by the user through its interactions, can be recorded in AVI format. These two interfaces have been integrated in a user-friendly, interactive and graphically oriented tool software called CALPE. This tool is used for the static and dynamic analysis of a catenaries system, which is shown by menas of a real case study.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:49:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/792713</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Users of Transport Modes and Multimodal Travel Behavior: Steps Toward Understanding Travelers' Options and Choices</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/776415</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Results are presented from analysis of individual mode choice behavior in the longitudinal section in Germany. The findings show that about half of German drivers also use public transport. Because they use different modes, they can be characterized as multimodals. This group will constitute an increasing share of the public transport clientele in coming decades because the decline of captive public transport riders is foreseeable. Therefore it is necessary to understand multimodal behavior because in an environment where travelers have increasing options, it is important to know how they make use of their options. It was found that multimodals employ public transport for specific purposes, whereas the car is universal. Less than 20% of multimodals use public transport on a regular basis, for example, to commute. Most multimodals use it occasionally. Multimodals opt for public transport in specific situations because it is the better option and not because there is no car available. Although for families the car is often the better choice, single persons tend to be more multimodal. Commuting by public transport was found to be a gateway to the use of public transport for other purposes.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:15:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/776415</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Sketch Models to Forecast Commuter and Light Rail Ridership: Update to TCRP Report 16</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/777841</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Ridership potential is among the most valuable attributes to understand about a proposed light or commuter rail line during early stages of project development, yet few nationally relevant sketch-level tools exist for feasibility analyses. Research was done to develop a nationally applicable, sketch-level ridership forecasting tool for light rail and commuter rail. The study collected current ridership, demographic, and transportation system data from 17 U.S. regions, including 58 commuter rail corridors, 22 light rail corridors, and 1,218 stations, and it tested 163 possible explanatory variables. The effort yielded two multivariable regression equations that show close relationships between actual and predicted values, with adjusted R-squared values of 0.97 for commuter rail and 0.92 for light rail. The models also validate well to existing rail systems in six regions and successfully predict actual line ridership with adjusted R-squared values of 0.84 for commuter rail and 0.47 for light rail. The new models improve on previous tools by introducing sensitivity to reverse-commute trips and special transportation hubs or ports and by introducing transportation-system variables to measure the impacts of faster operating speeds, lower fares, or shorter midday headways. The models require readily available data and use simple form, making the tool technically accessible to a large number of transportation planners. An apples-to-apples comparison with similar sketch models developed nearly a decade ago in TCRP Report 16 shows that the new tools perform consistently better, explaining between 31% and 213% more variation in observed rail boardings among the same validation data sets.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:12:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/777841</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Serving Travelers with Limited English Proficiency: Lessons Learned from International Experiences</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/777153</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Language barriers prohibit people who have Limited English Proficiency (LEP) from obtaining transportation information and services. Dampened access to mobility alternatives creates a fertile soil for complaints, which is exactly what transportation agencies and public transit service providers strive to reduce or eliminate. As part of its overall effort to improve transit services and comply with Title VI non-discrimination mandates, New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) commissioned research on best practices to satisfy the mobility information needs of LEP travelers.  This research included a survey of international transportation agencies and internationally oriented activity centers on their practices of serving customers who do not speak the native language. The ensuing study provides some unique lessons learned from agencies and private entities in other countries. Together with two other surveys presented earlier, this manuscript provides comprehensive strategies and tactics that may be referenced by transit agencies in the US to improve their services to LEP populations as well as to disabled travelers and general public transit users.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2006 07:39:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/777153</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Transit Passengers and Civil Rights</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/758685</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study examined what rights transit authorities have in ejecting or excluding persons who constitute a danger or annoyance to other passengers and the due process rights that members of the traveling public have in the use of transit.  The report discusses (1) responses by transit agencies to a survey on policies and procedures; (2) what the transit authority's obligations are to serve the public; (3) whether there is a constitutional right to travel via transit; (4) when restrictions on the use of transit facilities may implicate the First Amendment's rights of free speech and assembly; (5) what the transit authority's lawful responses are when there is suspicious activity or security threats; (6) what the transit authority's lawful responses are when there is unruly behavior or the presence of sex offenders in the transit system; (7) what the transit authority's obligations are regarding a transit user's service animal; (8) what the transit authority's potential liability is under the civil rights laws for a violation by the transit authority of a user's constitutional rights; (9) the standard of judicial review, i.e., level of scrutiny, that the courts would apply to transit regulations or policies that provide for the temporary or permanent suspension of transit users from the system; (10) whether the transit authority should have specific and clearly defined procedures in place concerning the barring of transit users; and (11) if a transit user is refused or suspended or barred from using transit facilities, what procedures would satisfy due process.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:22:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/758685</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AN EXPLORATION OF TRIANGULATION OF METHODOLOGIES: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY FUSION IN AN INVESTIGATION OF PERCEPTIONS OF TRANSIT SAFETY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/660943</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches to transit research provides an innovative tool in both determining and understanding the needs of users and non-users.  The present work builds upon the usefulness of each method and integrates them in the assessment of non-users' perceptions of transit safety and security.  The results from the quantitative and qualitative studies are examined in the context of integration and comparison and a new concept called triangulation of methodologies is introduced.  Recommendations are made as to how transit agencies might improve the perception of a safe and secure transit environment among non-users.  An epistemological discussion of methodological integration is also provided.  The two methods are in concordance with one another, verifying that people don't use transit because it is inconvenient, not because of safety issues.  However, the triangulation of results produces an enriched data product, with qualitative results expanding motivations behind non-use of transit and quantitative results linking the responses to certain demographic groups and quantifying the results.  Triangulation is an effective research tool which yields a product in which the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  In addition, a comparison of transit user versus non-user perceptions of transit safety is included to verify if the reasons which non-users gave for not using transit are valid.  In the transit user survey, participants were more concerned about safety than transit non-users.  Transit users would like for the system to be more convenient in aspects of travel time and ease of use, but they were more worried about safety.  Women and seniors were especially worried about their safety while using the system.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/660943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>