<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>AUTOMOBILES, THE ENVIRONMENT AND METROPOLITAN SPATIAL STRUCTURE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/469699</link>
      <description><![CDATA[More than 20 years ago, in a conference on Cities, Regions and Public Policy held at the University of Glasgow, a basic theme emerged that negative externalities should not be addressed or other urban problems that tamper with city sizes.  Rather, these externalities should be handled via direct policies.  This paper argues a variation of that theme--it is not efficient to correct these negative externalities via attempts to change metropolitan spatial structure.  More specifically, trying to put suburbanization and decentralization in reverse is not a sound strategy for reducing air pollution levels.  Discussions focus on suburbanization and air quality, air pollution and urban form, jobs-housing balance, congestion pricing and air quality, and emissions technology and control.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/469699</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE NEED FOR COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/195638</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article notes a reawakening of interest in coordinated land use and transport planning.  Citizens and administrators are calling for a more orderly approach to this aspect of development.  "Land Use and Transportation" and its parent Committee on Joint Development of Land and Transit can play an important role in such coordination.  It is noted that transit must become part of a wider federal strategy to revitalize central cities, stimulate urban economy, shape metropolitan growth and conserve energy.  The Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) is trying, through management of its discretionary grant program, to reward and stimulate coordinated development.  UMTA support is guided by the following principles: (1) a broad view of the concept of coordinated development; (2) the federal role is regarded as a catalyst for the commitment of private sector resources; and (3) the requirement that cities proposing to build fixed-guideway facilities with federal assistance should commit themselves to land use policies and incentives that stimulate complementary real estate development in corridors whose existing densities and travel volumes are insufficient to support the operation of rail transit on a cost-effective basis.  The need for federal interagency coordination is also discussed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/195638</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>APPLIED RESEARCH: OPPORTUNITIES FOR COORDINATED DEVELOPMENT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/195639</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Rice Center for Community Design and Research in Houston and the Administration and Management Research Association (AMRA) in New York (both funded by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration) which provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions investigating joint development opportunities as well as other research activities are reported.  The Value Capture and Joint Development Study at the Rice Center will observe value-capture and joint development activities in U.S. cities and draw upon it to provide impetus to other cities.  More than a dozen cities have been reviewed for observation.  Local developers, planners and financial experts were interviewed.  Joint development demonstrations in Baltimore were evaluated in terms of development finance assumptions.  The results of this study will be published as will also the history, in-progress case studies and future projects of value capture and joint development.  AMRA made on 2-year study in which 19 coordinated development projects were analyzed.  The study report, "Transit Station Area Joint Development: Strategies for Implementation" documents 28 techniques for fostering joint development and proposes model legislation for a transit corridor corporation.  Among other research activity that is reported is the Urban Institutes case studies of successful joint development techniques and the Conservation Foundation's study of transportation-related initiatives arrived at stabilizing and rejuvenating urban neighborhoods.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/195639</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TRANSPORTATION AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT NEED NOT ALWAYS BE ON A LARGE SCALE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/195640</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Although most existing transportation-inspired joint development programs involve substantial public and private investments, projects on a smaller scale can be economically and socially feasible.  Therefore investigations of suitable opportunities for joint development should not be restricted to large urban centers.  No preconceptions exist concerning the optimal scale within which to promulgate joint development ideas or programs.  Comments are made regarding programs in San Francisco; Augusta, Georgia; and Washington, D.C. Tax-increment financing was used as an inducement to encourage joint development at the Embarcadero Station of the Bay Area Rapid Transit.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/195640</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AND TRANSIT SYSTEMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/195641</link>
      <description><![CDATA[During the last decade the concept of joint development has evolved from a planning activity to specific programs and projects now under way in some 15 major metropolitan areas in the United States.  The Transportation Research Board Committee on Joint Development of Land and Transit Systems has developed this newsletter, Land Use and Transportation, to disseminate information on current policy, projects, and technology related to this broad field.  This first issue is devoted to the policies, programs, and ongoing research supported by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration.  Subsequent issues will focus on the role of other federal agencies (including the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Economic Development Administration) and the private sector in the coordinated development of transportation and land use.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/195641</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN THROUGH JOINT DEVELOPMENT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/195642</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Partly to help localities share their approaches to developing citywide strategies, HUD will introduce a national program of technical assistance for urban environmental design (UED).  It will focus on all aspects of implementation but will emphasize successful administrative approaches that are already at work.  It will be tied to a program of national awards for UED that is designed to emphasize innovative local management approaches.  In addition to urban development action grants, HUD's section 312 rehabilitation loan program, a structural rehabilitation program for residential and neighborhood commercial buildings, is aimed at areas of greatest need. Cities are being encouraged to make long-term, low-interest loans and grants in areas where other public and private actions are working to turn around the neighborhood. Section 312 will also offer a technical assistance program.  On a metropolitan scale, a more comprehensive integrated development process involving both public and private sectors is also being fostered.  A demonstration program for regional and state strategies became operational in late May 1978.  This effort is funded as part of the comprehensive planning assistance program. It provides incentive funding totaling $2 million to those areawide planning agencies that meet national objectives for the problems of distressed cities and address the problems of growth.  Funds will be granted to those agencies that are particularly effective in arranging cooperative local government efforts on these problems.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/195642</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HUD'S APPROACH TO JOINT DEVELOPMENT THROUGH PUBLIC HOUSING</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/195643</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The experimental program will contain several initiatives, including a $159 million targeted rehabilitation program, a $15 million management assistance program, a $32 million interagency anticrime program, and a $2.5 million urban partnership program designed to encourage city governments to work more cooperatively with public housing authorities in such ventures as the development of neighborhoods and commercial revitalization programs in public housing areas. It is this last, small amount that may provide the leverage for integrating a number of project- and process-oriented joint development efforts.  Eligible activities must meet the requirements for HUD's community development block grants and address one or more of the following: (a) development of plans and programs for reusing vacant or underused housing facilities (b) development of neighborhood and commercial revitalization programs in areas where there are federally assisted public housing projects, or (c) development of plans and programs to improve the level and quality of municipal support for local public housing authorities.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/195643</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>URBAN PACKAGING--TODAY'S NECESSITY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/195644</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Urban packaging requires a keen awareness of public-sector program opportunities, local and state laws, andd private economic market factors.  Because it is essential to major central city redevelopment, packaging requires the use of public-sector incentives to stimulate private investment.  An infrastructure must be provided by using federal programs in a creative, coordinated fashion.  A packager must have sufficient private-sector contacts to determine potential markets. At the same time, his or her political sensitivity and contacts must yield an appropriate blend of public actions. Red tape must be cut in order to interest developers in redeveloping older areas.  All of this requires several years of continuous effort, often against substantial opposition from citizens or from specific other interests. The urban packager is a key ingredient without whom the best policies, programs, and ideas cannot come to fruition.  (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/195644</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AND TRANSIT SYSTEMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/195645</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Since the publication of the first issue of Land Use and Transportation, several major national events have occurred in the field of joint development.  On June 25-27, 1978, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, the Urban Consortium, the Urban Land Institute, and Public Technology, Inc., cosponsored a Joint Development Market Place Conference in Washington, D.C.  The conference was attended by more than 450 representatives from 20 major U.S. cities, the private sector, and the federal agencies involved in urban programs.  At the conference, Richard Page, the UMTA administrator, announced the first joint-development capital grant award under the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974.  The award of $2.6 million was made to the Denver Regional Transportation District for the site acquisition and development of a multimodal terminal in downtown Denver. On July 27-28, the TRB Committee on Joint Development of Land and Transit Systems held a conference in St. Paul, Minnesota, on the joint development opportunities related to downtown peoplemover (DPM) systems.  William C. Habig, director of the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, served as chairman of the conference, which was cosponsored by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.  Eleven cities were represented at the conference, which focused on the problems of securing private-sector project commitments and general financial support for the development of DPM systems. (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/195645</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/188802</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This issue highlights the results of the Second Annual Conference on Joint Development on the Northeast Rail Corridor.  The specific articles published here as follows: New Vistas for Growth in Northeast Corridor; Forging a Public Private Sector Partnership That Supports Station Area Develpment; and A Joint Development: The Real Estate Transit Connection.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/188802</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NEW VISTAS FOR GROWTH IN NORTHEAST CORRIDOR</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/188803</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Northeast Rail Corridor reconstruction project, scheduled for completion by 1983, is seeking to produce a quality high-speed service within the Boston-New York-Washington corridor that is as economically viable, energy efficient, and environmentally desirable as any passenger rail system in the world.  The coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) and the Council for Northeast Economic Action (CNEA) have made every effort to publicize this significance of this project and to secure the greatest economic impact from it.  These groups sponsored a conference which showed that economic development would be favored by station development. With corridor station development, the high-speed rail line will become an important link between major activity centers in the Northeast.  As a supplement to this link, state and local governments should provide circulation within these centers.  Redevelopment should encourage transit and pedestrian trips, making the Northeast Corridor an energy-efficient total network.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/188803</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/188804</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This letter draws attention to the results of the Second Annual Conference on Joint Development on the Northeast Rail Corridor which are highlighted in this issue of "Land Use and Transportation."  Previous issues have emphasized a wide range of joint development activities.  Highlights of the Joint Development Marketplace Conference held in June 1980 will be presented in the next issue of this newsletter.  The Transportation Research Board's Committee on Joint Development and Transportation Systems will this year, focus on professional activities related to this area.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/188804</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>MAXIMIZING RETURNS THROUGH JOINT DEVELOPMENT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/188805</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Joint Development/multiple-use development is a coordinated planning and implementation process carried on cooperatively by highway and other agencies or organizations for the corridor that will be affected by the proposed highway. The single most important benefit from joint development is its economic impact.  It often leads to additional state revenues through rental of property or air rights, increased tax base, and through decreased cost of land acquisition for public facilities.  Also, it has been found that in urban areas, the cost of acquiring a whole block property would be only slightly higher than the cost of acquiring the minimum freeway right-of-way after severance damages are included.  Through proper joint development planning with private and other government entities, the economic feasibility of a highway facility can be a reasonable expectation.  Successful joint development projects across the country are briefly noted.  Also, in recent years, the Federal Highway Administration, in conjunction with other modes of transportation, has been developing multiple transportation uses of highway rights-of-way.  Several instances of railroad utilizing the highway rights-of-way have been developed.  An issue that many planners are starting to face is that many of the joint development and multiple use proposals must now be oriented toward already constructed highways.  The thrust of efforts in this area must be toward making maximum use of what is already built while assuring maximum returns from what is being built.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/188805</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I-670 JOINT DEVELOPMENT IN COLUMBUS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/188806</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Columbus, Ohio, a highway-oriented city has five radial freeways connecting the downtown innerbelt to the outerbelt, and a sixth I-670 is in the preliminary engineering stages. Part of the corridor through which I-670 would pass is being targeted for industrial and commercial joint development. The joint development of I-670 will initiate important new development and redevelopment.  A freeway interchange will open up the area by providing direct truck access to the entire Columbus market with excellent access to downtown and Port Columbus and with an important connection to interstate markets.  Both the freeway and the busway station would provide improved access for employees commuting to the area.  Columbus would also benefit from increased inner-city jobs and minority business development.  Also, an important tax base would be increased within the financially burdened Columbus school districts.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/188806</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HIGHWAY JOINT DEVELOPMENT: IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND PROSPECTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/188807</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The need is noted for highway joint development which involves using space over, under, or within the facility right-of-way, or acquiring land outside the right-of-way for nontransportation purposes such as environmental protection or community development.  The coordination of issues that must be overcome to achieve compatible land use development near freeways are compounded by the fact that industrial and commercial needs of space along freeways materialize late in corridor development.  The most advantageous types of joint development require commitments beyond what most highway agencies and localities have been able to make.  Also, there has not been full agreement on the most desirable type, composition, and design configuration of highway joint development.  However, recent developments bring hope for future success in joint development projects.  Thus, the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) policy limiting federal participation in noise-barrier costs along highways to residential developments constructed before 1976, may encourage local governments to plan and control future development that will minimize adverse impacts. This might help achieve joint development on a limited scale.  Also, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) requires planned development around transit stations in awarding grants.  Finally, an example is given where citizens and their government in Michigan favored realistic joint development.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/188807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>