<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>Cost-Effective Approaches to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through Public Transportation in Los Angeles, California</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1092977</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Los Angeles County, California, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) commissioned a study of strategic options for the agency to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This study compared a comprehensive range of strategies on potential GHG reductions and cost-effectiveness, in dollars per ton of GHG emissions reduced. Sixteen strategies were analyzed in four categories: promotion of alternative travel modes, transit service, vehicle technology, and facility energy use. Strategies with the greatest potential for GHG emission reductions (regardless of cost) included transit-oriented development, vanpool subsidy, onboard railcar energy storage, and ridesharing and transit programs for employers. The first three would save or generate money for Metro. Ridesharing and transit programs have the potential for net revenue generation, but the results were uncertain. Four more strategies would reduce smaller amounts of emissions while also saving money for the agency: recycled water for bus washing, low-water sanitary fixtures, Red Line tunnel lighting retrofits, and facility lighting efficiency. Understanding opportunities for GHG reductions requires expertise in transit operations, vehicles, facilities, and planning. Cost-effectiveness and total reduction potential can be supporting criteria in making funding decisions. The largest GHG reduction opportunities for Metro are typically those that reduce vehicle miles traveled, whereas many of the most cost-effective strategies address GHG emissions from facility energy use. Cost-effectiveness of a strategy to Metro can depend greatly on receipt of external funding, including federal funds or utility rebates. In some cases, the range of cost-effectiveness for a strategy is so great that it is not useful to inform decision making without some further definition.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:13:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1092977</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>VANPOOL IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK, A GUIDE FOR THE EMPLOYER, REVISED EDITION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/502102</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This handbook is a basic guide to assist in the establishment of a company-sponsored vanpool program.  It begins with an overview of the vanpooling concepts and the benefits to the employer, community, and employee of vanpooling.  The subsequent sections cover the following:  setting up a vanpool program, estimating the market for vanpooling and generating employee interest; selection of vanpool drivers; acquisition of vans; calculating and collecting fares; organizing the vanpool after employee interest has been determined; and legal aspects, including motor carrier regulations, driver licensing, and insurance. Appendices include sample forms typically used in company vanpool programs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/502102</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>VANPOOL ENERGY EFFICIENCY: A REEVALUATION AND COMPARISON WITH A BROKERED CARPOOLING CONCEPT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/199646</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Since the first employer-operated vanpools began operating in 1973, a great many statements have been made concerning the considerable energy savings possible through vanpooling. Furthermore, it has become a generally accepted conclusion that vanpools are the most efficient commuter transportation mode available.  The analyses which formed the bases for these statements and conclusions have seldom been more involved than simple comparisons of the line-haul energies of vanpools and average commuter automobiles, and rarely, if ever, have vanpools been compared with other innovative and efficient commuting modes.  Based on data available through a recent survey of vanpool riders in Chattanooga. Tennessee, this paper carries out a more detailed calculation of vanpool energy intensities by incorporating the line-haul, access-egress, and indirect energy uses of vanpools ass well as a calculation of the energy uses arising from the use of pool vehicles for private purposes. The resultant energy intensity of vanpools is calculated at 1508 kilojoules per passenger kilometer (kJ/Pkm) which represents an increase of more than 100% over the line-haul energy intensity.  Concurrently with the calculation of the vanpool energy intensities, values are calculated for an alternative commuting mode essentially identical of vanpools with the exception that efficient, subcompact, and compact automobiles are utilized instead of vans.  In the final analysis it is shown that efficient brokered carpools could save up to 60% of the energy used by vanpools while offering significant advantages over vanpools in ease of implementation and possible penetration in the commuting market.  (ERA citation 07:047218)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 1984 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/199646</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>VANPOOL ENERGY EFFICIENCY: A REEVALUATION AND COMPARISON WITH A BROKERED-CARPOOLING CONCEPT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/173903</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Since the first employer-operated vanpools began operating in 1973, much has been made of the considerable energy savings possible through vanpooling and it has been generally accepted that vanpools are the most efficient commuter transportation mode available.  The analyses that formed the bases for these conclusions have seldom involved more than simple comparisons of the linehaul energies of vanpools and average commuter automobiles; rarely, if ever, have vanpools been compared with other innovative and efficient commuting modes.  Based on data available through a recent survey of vanpool riders in Chattanooga, Tennessee, a more detailed calculation of vanpool energy intensities is presented that incorporates the line-haul, access-egress, and indirect energy uses of vanpools as well as a calculation of the energy uses arising from the use of pool vehicles for private purposes.  The resultant energy intensity of vanpools is calculated at 1508 kJ/passenger-km (2300 Btu/passenger mile), which represents an increase of more than 100 percent over the line-haul energy intensity. Concurrently with the calculation of the vanpool energy intensities, values are calculated for an alternative commuting mode essentially identical to vanpools with the exception that efficient subcompact and compact automobiles are used instead of vans.  In the final analysis it is shown that efficient brokered carpools could save up to 60 percent of the energy used by vanpools and also offer significant advantages over vanpools in ease of implementation and possible penetration of the commuting market.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 1982 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/173903</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>URBAN TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY: THE POTENTIAL SAVINGS OF DIFFERENT MODES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/57238</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Transportation in cities consumes about 10 percent of all the nation's fuel.  Potential savings through shifts in urban transportation policies have generated interest in Congress and elsewhere.  This paper describes the energy requirements of alternative urban transport technologies and assesses the effects on urban transport fuel consumption of various programs Congress might consider in order to save fuel.  This analysis presents several measures of energy use, ranging from a narrow index of propulsion needs to a broad index of program energy savings.  Attempts are made to consider energy needed to build and maintain roads and tracks, vehicles, stations and other facilities.  Considered are vanpool, carpool, bus, automobile, rapid transit, light-rail transit and commuter railroad.  The authors conclude that rapid transit offers little to aid the nation's efforts to save fuel.  This is based on such assumptions as the use of automobiles to reach the rapid transit station by most riders, and circuitous routings of fixed-guideway systems.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/57238</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. (PUBLIC LAW 94-163 AND 94-385)</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/77704</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Topic areas covered include: Thermal and lighting efficiency standards for new buildings, Lighting efficiency standards for existing public buildings, Building energy audits, Residential energy conservation, Decorative gas lighting, Master-metering, Industrial energy conservation, Natural gas tax credit repeal, Energy efficient procurement practices in Government, Carpool/vanpool promotion, Right-turn-on-red, Education and public awareness, and Intergovernmental coordination.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 1979 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/77704</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>VANPOOLING: AN UPDATE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/77927</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In April 1973, the 3M Company of St. Paul, Minnesota initiated the first employer-sponsored commuter-van program in the United States. Since that time and often following 3M's example, over 100 employers have sponsored vanpool programs. In addition, two other significant types of vanpool programs are operating: the third-party approach, where vans are provided and vanpools organized by other than the employer or employee; and the individually owned and operated approach, where a commuter provides the van and organizes the vanpool. The purpose of this booklet is twofold: (1) to present in one source the current data on a cross-section of vanpool programs; and (2) to allow prospective vanpool sponsors to analyze and compare the various approaches used by those programs already in operation. The key characteristic of vanpool programs is that each is a unique adaptation to a particular situation. A knowledge of these possible variations should prove helpful to an employer planning to embark on a vanpool project. (ERA citation 03:048121)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1979 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/77927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>