<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>Light rail transit: system design for cost-effectiveness</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1186893</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The emergence of light rail transit (LRT) as a cost-effective component of the urban-suburban transportation environment has reinforced the need to examine current issues of design, construction, and operation of LRT systems in a variety of settings and in comparison with other alternatives.  The framework of the 1985 LRT Conference was structured to report on innovative solutions and alternative strategies in a wide variety of site-specific situations.  Because the cost of constructing all varieties of fixed-guideways systems has increased in recent years, emphasis is being placed on justifying, constructing, and operating these systems in the most economical fashion.  Because of its flexibility of design, operations characteristics, and physical placement, LRT has much potential to achieve cost-effectiveness.  At the 1985 LRT Conference issues that arise when LRT is compared with other modal alternatives were explored and discussed.  Systems design, technology applications, and implementation planning as the related to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of LRT were also considered.  This State of the Art Report contains most of the papers that were presented at the 1985 LRT Conference as well as some that were presented at the 1985 TRB Annual Meeting.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 06:54:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1186893</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>DEVELOPMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGN AND STRATEGY INCORPORATING PUBLIC INPUT FOR THE BANFIELD EAST BURNSIDE CORRIDOR</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271670</link>
      <description><![CDATA[There were several reasons for FGA's involvement in the Banfield project:  first, to assure the integration of light rail transit into the community of East Multnomah County; next, to assure smooth implementation of construction--any measure proposed as a catalyst to expedite fitting the project into the community could not delay construction; third, to develop a design method for reducing the need for property acquisition wherever possible; and finally, to address the site-specific needs of each of the 540 residential and commercial properties.   To justify its role in the design process, the agency started with the assumption that when construction affects more than 500 front yards, severe problems can easily arise.  Tri-Met therefore decided to respond to the public.  Had Tri-Met ignored the public interest, by the time the project had been built they could have won the battle and lost the war thus severely affecting their long-term goals for light rail transit.  This is a condition that Tri-Met, a progressive and yet controversial agency, could barely afford to risk. The agency believed that, "since during construction there is not much good to tell, the best you can hope for is to eliminate any negative publicity."  Most decisions about large engineering projects are made on a cost basis.  This time, however, the agency decided not to use a decision.  To avoid a potentially significant public relations cost and a delay in schedule, a value judgment was made by the agency to include the East Burnside populace in the right-of-way design of Line Section 2.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:01:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271670</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>REALITIES OF CONSTRUCTING LRT IN CITY STREETS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271669</link>
      <description><![CDATA[MTDB has found the use of city streets to be, overall, an effective way of reducing total implementation costs.  At the same time, the joint use of city streets maximizes the use of public right-of-way to the further benefit of the public.  In MTDB's case, the city wound up with improvements that would not have been constructed without LRT.  MTDB winds up with an overall lower project cost. Even the private utility companies gain by the replacement of older facilities with new ones, which avoids much more costly replacement after the LRT system becomes operational. (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:01:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271669</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SMALLER SCALE JOINT DEVELOPMENT: SAN DIEGO TROLLEY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271667</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The purpose of this paper is to share San Diego's experience with joint development related to "smaller scale" light rail transit (LRT).  It is a narrative account of the Metropolitan Transit Development Board's (MTDB's) relatively modest but promising experiences to date.   This is not a report of the results of a rigorous or structured research analysis effort; it is instead a summary of practical experience and of some intuitive insights based on that experience.  A word about smaller scale joint development and why it is an appropriate topic for the MTDB is in order. Joint development has been and will continue to be a key goal and tool for implementing San Diego's LRT system. Smaller scale is not descriptive of the potential or aspirations for LRT joint development in San Diego; it is, however, reflective of experience to date.  In San Diego it has been found that a constellation of smaller scale joint development efforts is cumulatively adding up to more than the sum of their parts.  The result is the building of a foundation of joint development experience that can be expanded as the relatively new (less than 4 years old) LRT system expands and matures.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:01:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271667</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>UPGRADING CONVENTIONAL STREETCAR LINES TO LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT: CASE STUDY FROM OSLO, NORWAY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271665</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Three alternatives, two of them with a subalternative, have been developed and evaluated for improving the right-of-way standard for the streetcar lines in Oslo.  Alternative 3B gives the best improvement and is recommended in the long run, but it has considerable investment costs and requires extensive changes in the automobile traffic pattern.  For "Pilot Project Right-of-Way," a solution with lower construction costs and fewer impacts on automobile traffic was desirable.  PROW minimizes these problems, which is necessary to gain political approval at the start of the project.  An optimal alternative has therefore been developed to give satisfactory improvements in operating speed with limited construction costs and moderate changes in the automobile traffic pattern.  The alternative may easily be upgraded to Alternative 3 or 3B in the future. The planning procedure that was used in PROW can also be used when constructing new lines.  PROW is a concept with few ambitions in the beginning of the project, which represents considerable savings.  At the same time it is easily adaptable to changes in the streets.  The recommendation of PROW is based on moderate investments with enough flexibility for future improvements and expansion.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:01:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271665</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>DEVELOPMENT OF A RAIL TRANSIT PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271663</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In November 1980, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) sponsored an initiative, locally known as Proposition A, to improve transit services.   The initiative called for a half-cent sales tax increase throughout the county.  The proceeds from the tax would go toward reducing bus fares, improving local jurisdictions' transit services, and building a countywide rail transit system.  From January 1983 to July 1984, the commission developed a basic plan for a systemwide rail network and began its implementation.  The purpose of this paper is to summarize how this was done. The task was approached in three stages, each one logically evolving into the next: identifying high-priority rail corridors, identifying "representative" routes within the high-priority corridors, developing a systemwide operating plan for the full interim rail system (including a Century Freeway rail line and a connection to an Orange County light rail line), and cost-effectiveness derived priority ranking of the various light rail line segments.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:01:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271663</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SELF-SERVICE FARE COLLECTION SYSTEMS FOR LRT: STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271661</link>
      <description><![CDATA[SSFC is the most efficient and convenient way of collecting fares on an LRT system and therefore became the standard mode of fare collection for LRT.  SSFC offers possibilities for easily integrating the bus system into the fare system of an LRT system.  A step-by-step implementation program is recommended.  SSFC can also be used for heavy rail and regional train services as many applications in Europe have shown in recent years.  SSFC, including the idea of proof of payment for all passengers, is more a general philosophy than it is a system of fare collection as such.  SSFC has gone through an intense development process since the method was used for the first time.  The most important improvements can be found in the fields of hardware quality, fare inspection procedures, and cooperation between the transit authorities in the courts.  SSFC can be implemented in many various forms because it is a flexible mode of fare collection.  That every concept "works" appears to discourage many agencies from going through a clean evaluation process to define the best solution for their environment.  In the United States a psychological barrier against barrier-free fare collection still appears to exist. The reason for this problem might be that many professionals know barrier systems better than the barrier-free approach and therefore have a problem trusting SSFC.  As it did in the past the idea of SSFC will certainly grow further and be fine tuned as new technologies and new needs come up.  The next challenge for SSFC (as well as for other methods of fare collection) will be the integration of the electronic money systems.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:01:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271661</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CHANGES IN DIRECTION FOR LRT PLANNING IN EDMONTON</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271660</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Real progress on the second phase of light rail transit implementation in Edmonton, Alberta, has been very slow. This was caused mainly by the realization that many of the initial planning assumptions were too optimistic (e.g. railroad rights-of-way would be available, the economic boom of the '70s would continue into the '80s, a bridge built in 1913 would be suitable for LRT, land redevelopment happens automatically along an LRT line) and that the routing had to be changed.  Edmonton's experience demonstrates the constant need to have plans reviewed by knowledgeable outsiders and that it is safer and faster to plan for existing travel demand than for remotely possible eventualities.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:01:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271660</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>VALUE OF LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AS A MAJOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271659</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A priority ranking system may be necessary to ensure that limited resources are applied where they will do the most good or provide the most benefit.  When properly applied, light rail systems should rank quite well by any such measure if it is equitably and rationally devised.  UMTA has the basic requirements included in their cost-effectiveness index, but they have destroyed its practical and equitable application by using a delta-type figure for the denominator, which gives rise to infinite cost-effectiveness index numbers.  This is neither rational nor equitable.  If these defects were to be corrected, with passenger-miles applied in the denominator, light rail projects would have a good chance of winning grants because of their potential for relatively low-cost construction, low cost per passenger-mile, and savings in travel time cost.  At the same time, light rail projects offer civic values, such as stability; locational advantages; orderly development, assessed value increases for property served; and pollution-free, petroleum-free domestic energy supply. Light rail projects cannot be justified on civic values alone. The prime justification must be the operational and travel time savings that are made possible by reasonable construction costs.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:01:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271659</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>VALUE ENGINEERING METHODS APPLIED TO A GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM PROPOSED FOR ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271658</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This VE study has shown that value engineering, applied after the alternatives analysis phase, can provide significant savings on an overall transit project's costs. It also has demonstrated that single tracking is an operating technique with potential for major capital cost savings.  It should therefore be given serious consideration by cities concerned about the capital cost of fixed-guideway transit.  It is also believed that the savings should make single tracking a worthwhile area for federally sponsored research and development work.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:01:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271658</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>COST-EFFECTIVE APPLICATION OF LRT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271657</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A transit agency that wishes to introduce an LRT system with balanced total costs (capital and operating costs versus LRT performance) and aesthetic acceptability must make a number of significant decisions in determining the final type of system configurations to be used.  These issues are addressed during the feasibility and conceptual engineering stages.  The application of technology for the key LRT fixed systems has been summarized.  Factors that affect the cost-effective design and specification of track and roadbed, traction power, signals, and fare collection have been stressed.  Each is an important element of the overall LRT system, and each can be designed to enhance system economics by controlling capital and operating costs.  An attempt has also been made to show that these total costs must be balanced against LRT system performance for a given induced ridership.  For LRT, the balance is bounded on both the lower and the upper ends of its spectrum.  An excursion either way removes the LRT right-to-be.  In today's difficult financial environment for rail transit systems, designers are encouraged to seek out and apply balanced cost solutions such as those described in this paper.  Only by planning and building cost-effective systems will most American cities be able to afford the benefits of modern rail transit service.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:01:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271657</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>LIGHT RAIL: PROSPECTS AND PERSPECTIVES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271654</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In the 1970s this author, while employed by Regional Plan Association (RPA), a New York region-based planning and research not-for-profit organization, participated in two large studies that sought to define the land use conditions consistent with a variety of public transit modes.  In "Public Transportation and Land Use Policy",  transit cost and demand estimates were determined for hypothesized residential and nonresidential densities and development patterns.  The result was a generalized topography of "where transit works."  Modes examined included taxi, dial-a-bus, local bus, express bus, light rail, automated guideway transit, rapid transit, and commuter rail. Following this effort, in "Urban Rail in America", a more specific effort to define appropriate demand thresholds for light rail, rapid transit, and downtown people movers was undertaken. These thresholds, based on service frequency, operating savings, capital investment levels, and energy and savings, were applied to the major urban regions in America to establish a generalized level of national investment for fixed-guideway transit.  The findings of these two works as they relate to light rail are reviewed briefly because such material is readily available elsewhere.  The primary focus of this paper is on observations about light rail from the perspective of a planner who is currently responsible for helping to shape the future transit system of the fourth largest transit system in the nation, NJ Transit.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:01:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271654</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>DETERMINING COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF TRANSIT SYSTEMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271653</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Cost-effectiveness is, by definition, a term with two components:  "cost" and "effectiveness."  Each component has both broad and narrow definitional possibilities.  Further, the word "effectiveness" implies a goal or set of goals against which effectiveness is measured.  To determine effectiveness, the intent, the effects to be achieved, must first be stated.  Because transit goals are typically stated in broad terms, transit "effectiveness" is also likely to be broadly defined.  Obviously, definitions are required if sense is to be made of the subject.  Presented in this paper is a range of possible definitions, with a brief discussion of the problems of measurement of each. There follow some simplified definitions and measurements that might be used in attacking the problem of deciding when light rail transit might be considered a cost-effective alternative.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:01:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271653</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT: SYSTEM DESIGN FOR COST-EFFECTIVENESS. FOREWORD</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/271651</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Effective use of capital in the design of light rail rights-of-way, track, stations, signal systems, vehicles, and maintenance facilities is a pressing need; wider understanding of this need is vital if light rail is to be seriously considered as a mass transit mode.  The anticipated decreased availability of federal capital funds underscores the need to achieve greater results with state and local tax dollars.  The TRB Committee on Light Rail Transit decided that there was need for another LRT conference and that it should be structured around the theme of cost-effectiveness.  This volume contains many papers that were solicited by the TRB Committee on Light Rail Transit to address specific topics from a particular perspective.  Other papers were received in response to a general call for papers on the fairly narrow conference theme.  The result is a well-structured coverage of the cost-effectiveness aspects of LRT design, including systems, construction, operation, and vehicles.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:01:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/271651</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>