<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>PRESENTATION OF COMPARATIVE DATA FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/651276</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Clear, yet detailed, presentations of transportation planning data to lay groups as well as to technical groups are becoming more and more of a necessity in the planning process.  The transportation professional is faced with the challenge of presenting technical analyses in a manner permitting others to make their own, sound choices.  Increasingly, the choice of a preferred alternative involves both technical aspects and seemingly intangibles or quality aspects.  Technical analyses often seem to press in one direction while other considerations give a different perspective on the preferred solution.  Peer groups as well as administrators of programs are faced with the need to quickly understand complex planning relationships. Presentation of technical information in understandable terms has become increasingly critical to the decision making process. Professionals develop significant quantitative data to compare and contrast alternatives under investigation, and there is a need to render the results comprehensible for those making recommendations and those making decisions.  Is the oft-used analysis technique of measuring the effectiveness of various alternatives and screening the results becoming inappropriate? Can a process be developed to permit comparisons based on quantitative data and on qualitative measures?  Is there a way to permit individuals to use transportation planning data with individualized weightings and judgments to compare alternatives? Can the transportation professional improve the communication channels while maintaining objectivity and comprehensiveness? These are some of the questions which are in need of attention. Policy statements by the Federal Transit Administration and by the Institute of Transportation Engineers highlight several approaches to the comparison of alternatives and the selection of measures of effectiveness for those comparisons.  This paper addresses the application of simple but effective comparison techniques designed to provide high flexibility to individuals in comparing alternatives.  The presentation of technical results from transportation studies in spreadsheet formats gives the basis for objective comparisons while incorporating the variety of viewpoints on the relative merits of the selected measures of effectiveness.  This paper explores the screening techniques used in recent studies for ISTEA High Priority Corridors and feasibility studies and illustrates how the use of a matrix analysis technique has applications in many studies. These approaches were used to assist technical and policy committees in the selection of a preferred corridor.  The intent of the paper also is to place the approach in the proper context for various study applications.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/651276</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PRESENTATION OF COMPARATIVE DATA FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/540252</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Clear, yet detailed, presentations of transportation planning data to lay groups as well as to technical groups is becoming more and more of a necessity in the planning process.  The transportation professional is faced with the challenge of presenting technical analyses in a manner permitting others to make their own, sound, choices.  Increasingly, the choice of a preferred alternative involves both technical aspects and seemingly intangibles or quality aspects.  Technical analyses often appear to press in one direction, whereas other considerations give a different perspective on the preferred solution.  Peer groups as well as administrators of programs are faced with the need to quickly understand complex planning relationships.  Presentation of technical information in understandable terms has become increasingly critical to the decision-making process.  Professionals develop significant quantitative data to compare and contrast alternatives under investigation, and there is a need to render the results comprehensible for those making recommendations and those making decisions.  The application of simple but effective comparison techniques designed to provide high flexibility to individuals in comparing alternatives is addressed.  The screening techniques used in recent studies for ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) high-priority corridors and feasibility studies are explored and how a matrix analysis technique has applications in many studies is illustrated.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/540252</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>OBSTACLES TO COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSIT PERFORMANCE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/55422</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The problems encountered and the issues raised in efforts to collect reliable and uniform operating and financial data from transit operators in California are detailed.  The data was collected in an attempt to test the usefulness of performance indicators which were specified for criteria for evaluating public transit-performance.  The problems discussed include those relating to why the data is not reported, the meaning of the data, and if the data is outdated.  It is recommended that data requirements and data reporting channels be simplified.  The required data items must be clearly defined and the generation techniques must be specified.  It is noted that the area of data requirements, collection, and use, needs the combined and cooperative attention of the transit industry, government, and the research community.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/55422</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SAFETY IN URBAN TRANSPORTATION: GUIDELINES MANUAL AND RESEARCH REPORT SUMMARY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/28777</link>
      <description><![CDATA[An investigation was carried out with the purpose of providing information and reporting the results of analyses about the current level of safety and the need for additional safety effort in urban mass transit.  The Research Report Summary outlines the steps followed in the investigation, and serves as an introduction to the final report which is now in preparation and will contain a full presentation of data on the safety performance of all passenger transportation modes, comparative analyses of their safety problems, and the rationale underlying the strategy and practice of safety management recommended in the report and reflected in the guidelines manual.  The manual presents a series of organizational and technical safety guidelines designed for use of the transit management community.  The guidelines are intended to show how the transit industry--supplier firms and operators--can develop programs that will assure satisfactory operational safety levels.  By describing ways in which suppliers and operators can set logical safety goals and establish organizations and engineering procedures to attain them, the manual sets forth a model for industry management and for basing the interaction, regarding safety, between pertinent Government agencies and the transit industry.  The manual covers the following topics in separate chapters: foundations of safety in urban mass transportation; safety management and planning; techniques for safety analysis; trade-off considerations; system safety data base; safety standards and specifications; and intermodal interface safety considerations.  These guidelines are in the form of suggested or recommended parctices accompanied by explanation.  They are designed to have a considerable latitude of user interpretation so they can fit the wide variety of specific situations found in the transit industry.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/28777</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AMERICAN URBAN MALLS. A COMPENDIUM</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/150335</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This publication is an outgrowth of the More Streets for People public information program. It provides an easily understandable and comparative overview of a majority of North American pedestrianization experiments through the presentation of vital statistics and photographs of 68 malls. During 1977, every North American city with an operational pedestrian zone as of June 1976 was invited to provide information for this compendium by completing a series of questionnaires and providing a photograph and descriptive material that would best represent its mall. The data received was condensed into the following categories: statistics on the city, including population, modal split of home - to - work trips, and the number of available parking spaces in the central business district; statistics on the mall itself, including physical dimensions and methods of operation; information relating to the implementation of the project, including legislation and financing; and the name of the agency or person to contact for further data on each mall. Since the compendium illustrates the fundamental framework of traffic - free experiments of varying size and scope, it can serve as a guide to planners and urban advocates contemplating traffic bans for their cities. A key explains the symbols used in the document. Each city is treated individually, and an alphabetical index listing the cities discussed is provided. (Author abstract modified).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 1980 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/150335</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PAVEMENT INVESTMENT DECISION-MAKING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/103449</link>
      <description><![CDATA[THERE ARE TWO MAIN PHASES TO THIS REPORT. THE FIRST PHASE IS CONCERNED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF INVESTMENT COST DATA USED IN COMPARING ALTERNATIVE FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGNS. AN ECONOMIC COST MODEL THAT USES THE PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL COSTS OVER AN ANALYSIS OR SERVICE PERIOD IS THE BASIS FOR A TECHNIQUE OF GRAPHIC PRESENTATION OF TOTAL COSTS OF A DESIGN OVER A RANGE OF INITIAL LIVES AND WITH DIFFERENT SURFACING LIVES. A PAVEMENT DESIGN MODEL TOGETHER WITH AN OVERLAY DESIGN MODEL PROVIDES THE BACKGROUND BY WHICH COMPARABLE DESIGN STRATEGIES CAN BE WORKED OUT TO PROVIDE PAVEMENTS THAT WILL REMAIN ABOVE SELECTED SERVICEABILITY LIMITS OVER THE SERVICE OR ANALYSIS PERIOD. THE PAVEMENT DESIGN AND OVERLAY MODELS UTILIZE BENKELMAN BEAM ANNUAL MAXIMUM REBOUND MEASUREMENTS, AND SERVICEABILITY LEVELS OF THE PAVEMENT ARE REPRESENTED BY PRESENT PERFORMANCE RATINGS (PPR). THICKNESS- DEFLECTION CURVES FOR THE DIFFERENT SUBGRADE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED IN ONTARIO PROVINCE ARE DEVELOPED FROM EXTENSIVE FIELD EXPERIENCE. FIGURES ARE PRESENTED THAT INDICATE THE INFORMATION FLOWS NEEDED TO PRODUCE THE INVESTMENT DATA ON WHICH A PAVEMENT DECISION CAN BE BASED. THE SECOND PHASE OF THE REPORT CONSIDERS THE OTHER INFORMATION FLOWS THAT ARE NEEDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE FIRST PHASE. THESE CONSIST OF HIGHWAY GEOMETRICS, UNIT PRICES DETERMINATIONS, MAINTENANCE COSTS, AND CONSTRAINTS DUE TO SKID RESISTANCE, FUNDS AVAILABLE, AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. FOR A MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO BE FULLY OPERATIVE, THE PAVEMENT MUST BE MONITORED AFTER IT IS CONSTRUCTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER ITS SUBSEQUENT BEHAVIOR AGREES WITH THE PRESCRIBED PAVEMENT STRATEGY. SUCH MONITORING IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE INFORMATION GATHERED CAN THEN BE USED TO ADJUST THE DESIGN MODELS SO THAT FUTURE DECISIONS WOULD BE BASED ON MORE ACCURATE PREDICTIONS. A PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FLOW CHART SHOWS HOW THE TWO PHASES ARE INTERCONNECTED. /AUTHOR/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 1973 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/103449</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF ROAD ACCIDENTS. VOL II OF FIVE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/109112</link>
      <description><![CDATA[THE WORK PRESENTED IN THIS VOLUMN ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE THE RELEVANCE OF SOME ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISTRIBUTION AND CAUSATION OF ROAD ACCIDENTS. THE DATA OBTAINED FROM TWO ACCIDENT BASED SURVEYS MADE BY THE ROAD ACCIDENT RESEARCH UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM ARE ANALYZED AND DESCRIBED BOTH URBAN AND RURAL ROAD ACCIDENTS. THE SURVEYS, CONDUCTED DURING 1965 - 6 WITHIN AN AREA OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM AND DURING 1967 - 8 WITHIN THE COUNTY OF WORCESTERSHIRE, RESULTED IN OVER 600 ROAD ACCIDENTS BEING VISITED AND RECORDED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES. IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT 57 ACCIDENTS WERE VISITED IN THE WORCESTERSHIRE SURVEY WHICH OCCURRED IN URBAN AREAS, THAT IS IN AREAS SUBJECTED TO 30 OR 40 MPH SPEED LIMIT RESTRICTIONS AND BEING BUILT-UP AREAS PROVIDED WITH STREET LIGHTING. THESE ACCIDENTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ANALYSIS OF RESULTS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (1) IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF URBAN AND RURAL ROAD ACCIDENTS WOULD BE DIFFERENT, (2) IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE 57 URBAN ACCIDENTS WOULD BE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF THE ACCIDENTS VISITED IN URBAN AND SUBURBAN BIRMINGHAM, AND (3) THE SUB SAMPLE 57 WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN ITSELF LARGE ENOUPH TO WARRANT A FULL AND SEPARATE ANALYSIS. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT NO DIRECT COMPARISONS OF THE RESULTS OF THE TWO SURVEYS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THIS VOLUME, SINCE IT IS FELT THAT PRESENTATION OF SEPARATE AND DETAILED ANALYSES OF THE URBAN AND RURAL ACCIDENTS ARE OF MORE VALUE AT PRESENT--AND INDEED MANY COMPARATIVE ANALYSES, OFTEN MADE PER SE, ARE OF LITTLE RELEVANCE TO THE ACCIDENT PROBLEM. IT IS INTENDED HOWEVER THAT SOME COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF THE DATA WILL BE MADE IN THE FUTURE. /SRIS/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 1970 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/109112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>