<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>Analysis of the visual character of the major highway corridors of El Paso, Texas</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1168908</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The goal of the study is to describe the visual character of the highway corridors, to identify the major visual problems and resources, and to suggest ways of addressing these issues in future projects.  Data for the study was gathered by field study of the highways and in-depth interviews with a small group of El Paso residents.  The study indicated that the users of the highway formed an overall image of the roadway rather than dividing it into good and bad landscapes.  This image generally described the roadway as dirty, trashy, and drab.  The field studies noted that in most cases, the scale of the roadway in relation to the motorist was visually disturbing.  It is recommended that efforts to address these issues follow two primary criteria: 1) use grass or aggregate groundcovers to give a clean appearance to the groundplane, and 2) install dense tree masses where appropriate to counteract the poor scale relationships.  The study also noted that El Paso's highways do not go far enough in communicating the presence of significant cultural elements.  The study found a number of cultural elements that had enormous development potential in this regard. Recommendations to enhance these areas center on improved signage and use of cultural symbols.  The report also recommends that TxDOT provide leadership in forming coalitions designed to address the issue of El Paso's image on a large scale.  This approach will be a more efficient use of development dollars by a coordination of goals resources with city planning agencies and local action groups.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:59:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1168908</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CRITERIA FOR THE DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC SIGN SYMBOLS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/290009</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Several criteria for traffic sign symbols were examined through a questionnaire survey that allowed determination of the importance, or weighting, that should be assigned to each symbol in the design and evaluation of signs.  The survey sample included traffic sign experts (members of national traffic control device committees) and practicing traffic engineers from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States.  Separate ratings were assembled for symbols in general and for warning, regulatory, and information symbols in particular.  Understandability was the factor rated most important, with conspicuity second. Learnability was considered least important, while reaction time, legibility distance, and glance legibility were rated equally but were determined to be more important than learnability.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Dec 1988 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/290009</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SIGNING SYMBOLS: HOW WELL DO THEY WORK?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/283303</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Several criteria for traffic sign symbols were examined in a recent survey to determine the importance, or weighting, which should be assigned in each criterion in the design and evaluation of signs.  The sample involved traffic sign experts and practicing traffic engineers from the US, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.  Separate ratings were done for symbols in general and for warning, regulatory, and information symbols.  Understandability (the ease with which the symbol can be understood) and conspicuity (the extent to which a sign can be easily detected or seen in a visually complex environment) were rated most important. Learnability (the extent to which the meaning of a symbol can be learned and remembered) was considered least important.  Reaction time (how quickly the sign's meaning can be identified), legibility distance (the greatest distance at which the symbol can be read), and glance legibility (the ease with which the symbol can be read when it is seen for only a fraction of a second) were rated equally, but more important than learnability.  Future studies may involve having the criteria rated by drivers as well as sign designers and highway engineers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 1988 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/283303</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HYBRID TURN RESTRICTION SIGNS - COMPREHENSION OF SOME ALTERNATIVE FORMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/186396</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Two experiments were carried out to investigate the accuracy of initial comprehension of some alternative forms of hybrid turn restriction signs.  A hybrid sign is one in which the message is presented in both symbolic and verbal form.  In the first experiment it was found that: (1) hybrid signs were better understood than semi-hybrids; (2) hybrid signs with a prohibitory verbal component were better understood than those with a mandatory verbal component; (3) best of those tested were hybrids with both symbol and words in prohibitory form.  In view of the known advantages of mandatory sign forms in terms of most other criteria of sign effectiveness, a second experiment was carried out to investigate initial comprehension of signs displaying combination (mandatory plus prohibitory) symbols.  It was found that such symbols were better understood than both mandatory and prohibitory symbols.  Comprehension of hybrid signs consisting of a combination symbol and a prohibitory verbal component was as good as that of completely prohibitory hybrids, and their use is therefore recommended (a). The number of the covering abstract of the conference is TRIS no. 368448.  (TRRL)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 1984 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/186396</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EVALUATION OF DRIVER COMPREHENSION OF WORD VERSUS SYMBOL HIGHWAY SIGNS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/136646</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This experiment investigated the effects of word and symbol signs on reaction time and accuracy of response.  In addition, a proposed symbol sign, "SCHOOL BUS STOP AHEAD," was evaluated using the same criteria.  A tachistoscope was used to present the visual stimuli for a viewing time of 200 milli-seconds.  Two sets of conditions were used in the experiment.  The first part consisted of a group of subjects that possessed no prior knowledge of/or special education in symbol highway signs.  The second part involved a control group who received special training concerning the meaning of symbol highway signs.  The stimuli were presented to 20 subjects (both male and female) aged 19 to 45, whose driving experience ranged from 3 to 29 years.  The average miles driven per year varied from 1,000 to 20,000 miles.  A three factor analysis of variance fixed effect model was used to analyze the data.  The main factors of the model consisted of two levels of stimuli (word versus symbol signs), two levels of test conditions (prior knowledge versus no knowledge), and ten levels of different signs (traffic signs).  Based upon the analysis of variance results, it was found that symbol signs do convey more accurate identification of road information than do word signs. However, it was not possible to conclude that symbol signs require less time to react to than word signs.  The results of this investigation confirmed that neither the word or symbol "SCHOOL BUS STOP AHEAD" sign effectively convey the proper message. /HSRI/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 1975 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/136646</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>