<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>Mobility 10X: Accelerating Transportation Innovation in California</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2666796</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The magazine features 10 stories that highlight the breadth and impact of the Resilient and Innovative Mobility Initiative's (RIMI's) work across the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies (UC ITS) campuses— Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, and UCLA. It also draws on related research funded through the UC ITS SB1 program, established by California’s Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, along with additional studies by UC ITS scholars and the broader research literature. Together, these efforts demonstrate how targeted research can achieve a 10x impact— shaping policy, influencing practice, and scaling solutions to California’s complex transportation challenges, from decarbonization to bolstering public transit and road safety. For policymakers, planners, and agency leaders, this magazine provides a roadmap for translating research into long-lasting, system-level improvements.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:00:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2666796</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Joint price and power optimization experiment for workplace charging stations</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2602061</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Workplace electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure is a key enabler of sustainable urban transitions—by facilitating daytime charging aligned with renewable energy and expanding access for drivers without home-charging options. However, financial sustainability remains challenging as these services are often provided for free or at flat rates. This paper demonstrates the effectiveness of joint price and power optimization in increasing revenue and shifting load at workplace charging stations. We integrate empirically estimated behavioral models to influence user decisions through price signals that: (i) enable smart charging and reduce operational costs, (ii) increase charging service revenue, and (iii) maintain adequate utilization. Our framework considers the trade-offs between high utilization and the first two objectives. We achieve high utilization and smart charging outcomes by incentivizing delayed charging only when cost savings are available. We achieve high utilization and high gross revenue by modeling the choice of not charging as an increasing function of the charging tariff. We demonstrate our approach through a 33-day pilot at the University of California, Berkeley, achieving a 28.9% increase in net revenue, 18.4% reduction in utility costs, and a 17% load shift to low-cost periods.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 17:07:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2602061</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Managing partnerships for sustainable development: The Berkeley—China sustainable transportation program</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1459064</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Over a five-year period, the University of California Berkeley’s Global Metropolitan Studies-China Program conducted research in partnership with local counterparts in Beijing, Shanghai, Jinan, Chengdu, and Kunming. Research focused on strategies for maintaining and increasing the sustainability of the cities’ transportation systems in the face of rapid economic growth and accelerating motorization, and included planning, analysis, and design of projects on transit-oriented development, non-motorized transportation, and bus rapid transit. In this paper, the authors focus on two cases that exemplify the positive and negative experiences in research partnerships. Through an assessment of these partnerships, they identify a core set of elements that are key to effective co-production and exchange of knowledge. The elements include: strong and engaged leadership at multiple organizational levels, engagement in capacity building projects as a strategy to develop mutual understanding, and multiagency and multidisciplinary collaboration. These findings are consistent with and elaborate on current research on knowledge transfer (Khirfan, 2011; Marsden et al., 2011). In their China work, where these elements were strong, the authors (including their Chinese partners) were able to incorporate strong principles of sustainable transportation into local planning. These experiences provide lessons and strategies for practitioners and researchers who plan to work in China.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:51:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1459064</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Building more parking at major employment centers: Can full-cost recovery parking charges fund TDM programs?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1459076</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In dense urban areas, surface parking often poses an opportunity cost, and reuse of the land for urban development with parking relocated to a multi-story structure may be an attractive option. This paper analyzes the cost of replacing surface parking with a parking structure and finds that it may be equally cost effective to pursue travel demand management strategies. The paper analyzes what it costs to build a parking space in a multi-story structure (garage) using US average data as well as data from the case of a typical large US employer, the University of California, Berkeley. The Berkeley case illustrates how replacement of surface parking with structures can substantially escalate costs and necessitate price increases for everyone, unless costs can be offset through more efficient utilization rates (e.g., renting out employee parking for evening and weekend use) or the parking system is credited for the land value of former surface parking (not likely in the situation considered here). A transportation demand management (TDM) program offering incentives for other modes of commuting can reduce the need for new parking, and its annual costs are likely to be lower than the amounts needed to cover new parking construction. Parkers could be better off paying for TDM programs to reduce parking demand rather than paying to build new parking structures. The findings are case specific but are likely to resonate with many employers and institutions that provide parking in high-cost urban areas.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:51:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1459076</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Casual Analysis of FlexPass: Incentives for Reducing Parking Demand</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1394492</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A parking incentive program named FlexPass have been conducted in University of California, Berkley. The causal structure underlying employee parking behavior is examined in this study by a randomized controlled trial, where participants receiving treatment were offered incentives for parking less and taking other modes. This field experiment lasted for three months and recruited 392 staff and faculty members. Practicable problems encountered during the study were non-random differential dropout after the group assignment and non-ignorable missing data. Missing data were measured by follow-up emails and estimated utilizing a mixed latent factor model, which outperformed traditional feature based models. Dropout bias was corrected by sample selection model. During the study, control participants, served as baseline, parked 4.3 days per week and the FlexPass induced an average treatment effect of 4.2% parking demand reduction. A heterogeneity treatment effect has been discovered. Participants who claimed to be interested in the pricing scheme, accounted for 77% of the enrolled population. There is a larger treatment effect of 6.0% in this group. For the rest, most of whom are regular drives, there is no significant treatment effect. The finding suggests that instead of building new parking structures, increasing the parking prices and providing incentives at the same time could reduce parking demand. It also brings significant rewards to those who choose to travel by other modes.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:48:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1394492</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Testing personalized outreach as an effective TDM measure</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1362991</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Urban college campuses often face challenges providing maximum transportation accessibility. Many believe strategies to ‘push’ and ‘pull’ individuals out of private automobiles will reduce emissions and mitigate the need for parking. This study focuses on University of California (UC) Berkeley’s evaluation of a program that conducts targeted outreach to encourage shifts away from driving. The program provides customized information on commute alternatives, and is evaluated using descriptive as well as inferential statistics, focusing on effectiveness. Although the sample size is small, the findings show that a large component of program participants (8%) changed modes. Interviews with commuters evaluated potential barriers, including the adequacy, safety and convenience of alternatives. The study concluded that information alone is not adequate to draw individuals away from autos; other efforts to reach patrons must make driving alternatives easy and appealing. More research is needed on the interplay between outreach efforts and mode shift. Additional research and policy outcomes for urban campuses include: (1) a focus on information technology aided ride matching or carpooling; and (2) an increased focus on the telework environment. These strategies can assist urban campuses to refine comprehensive transportation demand management programs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2015 11:25:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1362991</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The impact of targeted outreach for parking mitigation on the UC Berkeley campus</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1356835</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Universities with urban campuses and constrained budgets such as the University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley) often find that repurposing parking facilities is more cost effective than obtaining new land for expansion. In spring 2013, UC Berkeley began closing off parking sites for building construction. However, rather than exploring the construction of new parking the campus began to explore targeted outreach encourage mode-shift for drivers whose travel patterns have been directly impacted.  This study, conducted by campus researchers, analyzes change in commute patterns of UC Berkeley permit holders after targeted marketing campaign that not only provided customized information on their commute alternatives, but that delivered it in a softer, more personal, manner – taking advantage of one-on-one contact. The overall findings show that campus commuters did shift away from driving alone when they receive targeted outreach, although at a low rate when compared to other transportation demand management tools.  The authors conclude that while such a program can fill an information gap, providing better or ‘curated’ information, it is just one of many practices that need to be used by urban campuses. Campuses, as such, should consider bundling it with more comprehensive policy and programs to reduce parking demand.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:45:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1356835</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Rethinking Parking</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1347253</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article presents a case study of the University of California, Berkeley's goBerkeley pilot program. The goBerkeley program, launched in July 2013, proposes a demand-based parking pricing structure aimed at reducing emissions from congestion and supporting economic vitality in the city. The article describes the process of designing the program, offering incentives for community participation, and implementing and evaluating the program's success. Lessons learned from the pilot are also presented.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:49:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1347253</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Cost versus Price for Parking Spaces at Major Employment Centers:
Findings from UC Berkeley</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1338208</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In dense urban areas, surface parking often poses an opportunity cost, and reuse of the land for urban development with parking relocated to a multistory structure may be an attractive option. This paper analyzes the cost of replacing surface parking with a parking structure and finds that it may be equally cost effective to pursue travel demand management strategies. The paper analyzes what it costs to build a parking space in a multi-story structure (garage) using US average data as well as data from a substantially higher-cost case, the University of California, Berkeley. The Berkeley case illustrates how replacement of surface parking with structures can substantially escalate costs and necessitate price increases for everyone, unless costs can be offset through more efficient utilization rates (e.g., renting out employee parking for evening and weekend use) or the parking system is credited for the land value of former surface parking (not likely in the situation considered here). A transportation demand management (TDM) program offering incentives for other modes of commuting can reduce the need for new parking, and its annual costs are likely to be lower than the amounts needed to cover new parking construction. Parkers could be better off paying for TDM programs to reduce parking demand rather than paying to build new parking structures. The findings are case specific but are likely to resonate with many employers and institutions that provide parking in high-cost urban areas.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:03:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1338208</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Dealing with parking issues on an urban campus: The case of UC Berkeley</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1330169</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Many transportation planning studies focus on mode-of-transportation as a static variable, not accounting for a range of user decisions such as miles traveled or (if driving) the duration of time between departure and arrival. Existing research into parking decisions investigates factors that determine or underlie mode choice decisions (Shoup and Willson, 1992; Vaca and Kuzmyak, 2005; Willson and Shoup, 1990). However, these studies do not address specific interventions tied to less driving and to projected reductions in greenhouse gas GHG emissions, This study looks at dynamic variables to see how parking price reforms, traveler information systems and incentives affect an increase in the use of public transit and non-motorized modes among the faculty and staff at UC Berkeley. Through a stated preference survey this study assessed the participants’ responsiveness to changes in pricing and information to reveal how a campus population can (1) search less for parking, (2) drive fewer days per week and (3) switch modes entirely. The University is one of the largest regional employers in the San Francisco Bay Area, generating consistently close to 50,000 daily trips to the campus (Riggs, 2009; Wilmot, 2012). Data from transportation surveys and geographic information systems (GIS) technology showed the percent of faculty or staff within walkable distance or bikeable distance (36%), or in areas that are transit accessible (48%). Regression analysis also indicates that social factors and incentives can have a strong pull on driving behavior. This means that focusing on such transportation demand management programs can result in fewer vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions along with a more equitable and accessible campus environs. It also justifies the need for campus to systematically document and benchmark commuting behavior.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:05:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1330169</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Impact of Parking Prices and Transit Fares on Mode Choice at the University of California, Berkeley</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1289829</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The University of California, Berkeley, and the City of Berkeley sought to reduce single-occupancy-vehicle commute trips to the campus as a means to reduce negative transportation externalities and to fulfill their environmental emissions reduction goals. This paper reports on the evaluation of policy scenarios to assess the potential impact of parking pricing and transit fare subsidies on the overall mode share of the University of California, Berkeley, community. A mode and parking choice model was developed on the basis of a biennial campuswide transportation and housing survey; policy alternatives were tested with a sample enumeration. The discrete choice model selected for policy analysis was a nested logit model calibrated on a randomly selected subsample of n = 3,371 individuals and validated against the remaining 814 campus commuters. Factors found to influence mode choice significantly in this model included travel times and costs, gender, student status, age older than 70, and home location topography. Campus affiliates also appeared to have a predisposition to walk, which likely reflected the large student population that lived close to campus. A drive-alone value of time of approximately $30 per hour was calculated. Policy scenario tests suggested that, to spur a significant mode shift away from that of driving alone, parking pricing reforms would need to be used in tandem with incentives to use alternative modes. Such an approach might garner additional political support, especially if commuters who drove alone received the indirect benefits of transit subsidies, such as reduced congestion and a less competitive parking market. Policies designed to mitigate the regressive impacts of parking fees were tested also.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:49:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1289829</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The impact of a ‘soft sell’ for parking mitigation on the UC Berkeley campus</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1288868</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Universities with urban campuses and constrained budgets such as the University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley) often find that repurposing parking facilities is more cost effective than obtaining new land for expansion.  In spring 2013, UC Berkeley began closing off parking sites for building construction. However, its Parking & Transportation (P&T) department finds itself in a fiscally constrained position due to the high cost of providing parking, and pressures from faculty and staff to keep parking costs down. The campus also faces strong pressure from the City of Berkeley and state policy to reduce its traffic impacts. One strategy for encouraging mode-shift is to target drivers whose travel patterns have been directly impacted—whether by a move to a different worksite, or a personal household move—with a “soft sell,” or personal touch. This study analyzes the commute patterns of UC Berkeley parking permit holders before and after a targeted marketing event and personal touch campaign that not only provided customized information on their commute alternatives, but packaged it in a customer-friendly manner, from one person to another. The authors delved into the travel behavior changes made after the outreach, and after the closure of a parking structure that was the subject of this study. The overall findings show that campus commuters did shift away from driving alone when they receive targeted outreach, but at a very low rate when compared to other TDM tools.  The authors conclude that while such a program can fill an information gap it is just one of many practices that need to be used by urban campuses.  Campuses, as such, should consider bundling it with more comprehensive  policy and programs to reduce parking demand.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:13:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1288868</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Crossing to Safety</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1256492</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Due to the concentration of pedestrians and vehicles in the University of California, Berkeley, area, the four streets that make up the campus perimeter have been deemed dangerous. While the 1,232-acre campus and the four city blocks that surround it make up only six percent of the city of Berkeley, this small area was responsible for about 25 percent of automobile/pedestrian collisions during a nine-year period. Transportation educators and students at Berkeley diagnosed many of the problems on these streets and proposed solutions. The city of Berkeley lacks the funds to pursue some of the beneficial long term plans, leaving the residents of the campus area in danger of the unsafe environments.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:47:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1256492</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Strategies for UC Berkeley Campus and Periphery: Recommendations for Implementation</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1247832</link>
      <description><![CDATA[There is a high level of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit activity on city-owned streets in the campus periphery surrounding the University of California, Berkeley. Although the periphery comprises less than 6% of the City of Berkeley, approximately 25% of the city's automobile-pedestrian collisions and nearly 20% of the city's automobile-bicyclist collisions occur within it. This study recommends short- and long-term actions to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety in the periphery. Among the short-term improvements: flashing beacons, pedestrian warning signs, high visibility crosswalk markings, shared lane markings, and bicycle warning signs. Longer-term recommendations include: bulbouts, median islands, stop signs and better lighting to improve crossings; reconfiguring lanes; creating slow-speed zones; separate bicycle facilities; increased enforcement; and, increased eduction.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2013 08:49:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1247832</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Pedestrian Crash Risk on Boundary Roadways: University Campus Case Study</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1243020</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Prominent pedestrian trip attractors, such as college campuses and major urban parks, are often surrounded by roadways with high volumes of motor vehicle traffic. Although many pedestrians cross busy boundary roadways, relatively little is known about the pedestrian crash risk along these types of facilities. This study quantifies pedestrian crash risk at roadway intersections on the boundary of the University of California, Berkeley, campus during typical spring and fall semester weekdays. Manual pedestrian counts were extrapolated with data from three automated counter locations to represent pedestrian exposure. Pedestrian crash risk was highest at intersections along the boundary roadways with the lowest pedestrian volumes. In addition, pedestrian risk in the evening (6:00 p.m. to midnight) was estimated to be more than three times higher than in the daytime (10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.). The crash risk estimation approach presented can be used to study pedestrian safety on the boundary of campuses and other major attractors so that agencies can identify and prioritize engineering, education, and enforcement treatments to reduce pedestrian injuries.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:52:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1243020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>