<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>ACCOUNTING FOR MULTIMODAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE IN BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF TRANSIT INVESTMENT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486630</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Benefit-cost analysis, in the conventional planning and modeling paradigm, estimates benefits from transit rail investment as the consumer surplus (willingness-to-pay) from forecast trips.  New studies indicate that this paradigm, as currently implemented, fails to capture a wide array of benefits, namely improved multimodal system performance in congested corridors, transit-oriented development benefits, and cross-sectoral resource savings.  The economic theory predicting improved multimodal performance in congested corridors when the transit mode is improved is developed, the empirical evidence supporting that theory is described, and a method for refining the practice of benefit-cost analysis to account for the benefit of improved multimodal performance is proposed.  In urban corridors served by highways and a high-capacity transit mode, peak travel times and the modal split of trips will, in general, be influenced by highway capacity, relative prices, and individual preferences. However, in congested urban corridors door-to-door journey times are observed to be nearly equal across modes, converging toward the journey time by the high-capacity transit mode.  The convergence of travel times is predicted from microeconomic theory.  Empirical evidence from a recent study of 14 urban corridors in the United States supports this theoretical finding.  It is further found that reducing transit headways contributes to the modal convergence of travel times.  The principal policy implication of these findings is that improving the peak-hour performance of the high-capacity transit mode will also yield peak-hour performance improvements on the highway mode.  The convergence of travel times across modes would not, in general, be the outcome predicted by the conventional models that forecast modal splits and transit ridership, which, in turn, form the basis for the analysis of benefits from transit investment.  The multimodal effect of transit investment, as evidenced by the convergence of journey times, should be explicitly accounted for in the analysis of benefits.  This can be accomplished through the calibration of estimated modal constants so that the assignment of trips to the urban transportation network yields nearly equal door-to-door journey times in the relevant market segments.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486630</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>OPERATIONAL LEVEL-OF-SERVICE INDEX MODEL FOR RAIL RAPID TRANSIT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486631</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In planning a new transit system or considering alternatives to improve services of an existing transit system, it is essential to consider both the system capacity and the levels of service. However, the concept of transit level of service, unlike that of highways, is not well established.  Although the level of service is directly related to capacity, their relationship is poorly understood.  A level-of-service index model is described that attempts to establish levels of service for rail rapid transit on the basis of vehicle load factors and headways.  The model clearly demonstrates the relationship between level of service and system capacity.  It may be used as the basis for developing practical tools for assisting transit agencies to plan a new system or for rail rapid transit operators to better manage train operation, including, for instance, selection of optimal operating schemes and assurance of service quality.  The proposed model also makes it possible to compare the levels of service offered by different rail rapid transit systems on a common basis, and it may be used to develop a standard service guideline, which may be adopted by local transit agencies with modifications to reflect local conditions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486631</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>LIGHT-RAIL DEVELOPMENTS IN GREAT BRITAIN</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486616</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Nearly all street railways in Britain had disappeared by the 1950s, but their resurgence as light rail is now well established.  Tyne and Wear Metro brought light-rail technology to the United Kingdom in 1980.  Manchester opened the first light-rail system with street running in 1992, and Sheffield followed in 1994.  Outlined in this paper are light-rail schemes at various stages of planning and implementation in Great Britain.  The efforts to secure private-sector funding to meet government objectives and the environmental concerns about congestion and pollution are described.  A summary of the characteristics of schemes built, under construction, and planned is given, and the costs of construction for each system and proposed extension are compared.  The characteristics of light-rail vehicles are summarized together with the benefits obtained from light rail.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486616</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPROVING LIGHT-RAIL GRADE CROSSING SAFETY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486617</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Light-rail transit (LRT) systems have become popular throughout the world because of their ability to operate both on and off city streets, with large capacity for transporting passengers and frequent stops in urban areas.  However, operation of LRT systems in shared right-of-way presents an opportunity for collisions.  Many safety problems are the result of failure of motorists and pedestrians to obey or accurately understand warning devices and traffic controls.  New technologies, such as those of intelligent transportation systems (ITS), are being applied to improve safety at railroad grade crossings in Los Angeles County on the Metro Blue Line (MBL), a 22-mi (35-km) light-rail line.  The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has demonstrated that photographic enforcement can assist in reducing the number of traffic accidents.  For MBL grade crossings, camera equipment is activated by vehicles running under or around crossing gates or making left turns against red-turn arrows.  On a 7-month demonstration project in the city of Compton, the number of violations recorded by the equipment dropped off dramatically from one violation per hour to one violation every 12 hr.  In downtown Los Angeles, where motorists make left turns on red-arrow signals in front of the train, a demonstration project using photographic enforcement has resulted in a 34% reduction in violations.  Another ITS technology being used on the MBL is the AUTOSCOPE video detection system.  This system is being used to detect vehicles making illegal left turns across the MBL tracks, which triggers the photographic enforcement camera to take pictures of violators.  New technologies are being incorporated for two other safety improvement projects.  A four-quadrant or full-closure crossing gate system will be installed at one MBL grade crossing.  A wayside horn system was tested that allows an approaching train to sound a horn at the grade crossing for motorists and pedestrians using the crossing. The horn equipment is activated by the train operator.  The MTA successfully sponsored the Rail Transit Safety Act, a California-wide bill that imposes additional fines and points on persons who violate rail grade crossing safety laws.  The legislation also allows a judge to order a grade crossing violator to attend traffic school and view a film on rail transit safety.  In addition, it requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to include more information on rail transit safety in its handbooks and other publications.  The MTA supported the Rail Transit Safety Enforcement Act, another California-wide bill, which clarifies the use of photographic enforcement for grade crossing violations and places a DMV hold on violators who do not pay grade crossing citation fines.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486617</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>LIGHT-RAIL TRANSIT FOR MIAMI BEACH</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486618</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Issues related to the development of a light-rail line in Miami Beach, Florida, as part of a multimodal transportation system for metropolitan Dade County are presented.  The Florida Department of Transportation is conducting a study of multimodal transportation improvements in an east-west corridor through Dade County extending to Miami Beach.  Service from West Dade to the corridor's terminus in Miami Beach was originally envisioned as a through service using a single transit technology, possibly a hybrid technology combining elements of both heavy-rail and light-rail systems.  However, conditions in Miami Beach differ significantly from those in the rest of the corridor.  From West Dade to the seaport, a high-speed, exclusive right-of-way, high-capacity service is anticipated, whereas in Miami Beach an at-grade, on-street, slower-speed operation is envisioned. Because of issues related to operations, vehicle floor height, train length, and alignment impacts, the option of using heavy rail in West Dade and light rail between downtown Miami and Miami Beach is gaining momentum.  A related issue, the location and features of the transfer between light-rail transit and heavy-rail lines, directly affects the convenience and quality of service provided.  The second issue is the integration of the light-rail system within existing street rights-of-way in a dense urban setting.  The choice of a route within Miami Beach and the design of trackways and stations are interactive issues. Three basic alignment options are considered along with detailed arrangement of tracks and station platforms within the existing street rights-of-way.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486618</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>INTEGRATION OF EXTENDED VINTAGE TROLLEY OPERATIONS INTO NEW LIGHT-RAIL SYSTEM IN DALLAS, TEXAS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486619</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In 1989, restoration and construction of a 2.9-km (1.8-mi) long vintage street trolley system was completed in Dallas, Texas. The system was put into operation between the northern fringe of the central business district (CBD) and a retail and restaurant area immediately north of downtown Dallas.  Five years later, plans and preliminary designs were under way to expand this system.  At one end of the line, the route is to be extended further into the CBD to another retail, restaurant, and entertainment area and at the other end, to a major mixed-use development of office, housing, and retail activities.  More important, these two extensions will then interface with one of the stations for Dallas' 32.2-km (20-mi) light rail transit (LRT) starter system now under construction in the CBD, a downtown bus transfer facility now being designed, and another LRT station serving the mixed-use development north of the CBD. In doing so, the vintage trolley line will become a system connector, providing feeder service to the LRT and bus components of the transit system and serving an area of the city with limited transit accessibility.  The evolution of these systems and the status of their development and integration are described.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486619</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE DENVER EXPERIENCE: STARTING SMALL</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486620</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) successfully implemented a 5.3-mi (8.53-km) starter light-rail project solely with local dollars on time and under budget.  The Central Corridor light-rail line opened on October 7, 1994.  The $116 million project was designed and built through the heart of downtown Denver in 4 years.  The Central Corridor alignment and operations and how they fit into the RTD system both today and in future planned expansion are described.  The focus is on the strategy of using local funds for a starter project and the prospects for completing and implementing the Southwest Corridor light-rail extension (currently near the end of the preliminary engineering and draft environmental impact statement phase).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486620</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PEDESTRIAN CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR LIGHT-RAIL TRANSIT OPERATIONS IN METROPOLITAN ENVIRONMENTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486621</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Pedestrian considerations should be included with other considerations in the planning and design of light-rail transit (LRT) systems.  If pedestrians' needs are inappropriately accounted for, the LRT agency could experience higher-than-average experience with collisions between light-rail vehicles (LRVs) and pedestrians, leading to necessary and expensive system retrofits or reduced LRV operating speeds, which would negatively affect LRT operations and potential ridership.  Pedestrians interact with the LRT environment at stations and pedestrian crossings and in LRT-pedestrian malls. This interaction is unique in that (a) pedestrians are not always completely alert to their surroundings, (b) LRVs are unable to stop quickly or swerve to avoid colliding with a pedestrian, and (c) the injuries to the pedestrian are usually severe and often fatal.  Thus, special pedestrian traffic control devices (including relevant pedestrian striping, signs, and signals) and pedestrian crossing control treatments (including pedestrian automatic gates, swing gates, Z-crossings, and bedstead barriers) are necessary to help pedestrians become alert to the dynamic LRT environment.  Future research should be conducted to develop specific application guidelines for each of the pedestrian crossing control treatments.  The potential methodology for selecting one or more pedestrian crossing control treatments for installation at a given pedestrian crossing location should be expanded and quantified through this research.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486621</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>OVERVIEW OF LIGHT-RAIL TRAIN CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486622</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The various modes of operation of current U.S. light-rail transit (LRT) systems, the limitations of conventional train control technologies, and the capabilities and basic components of more advanced and emerging technologies are described.  The operational constraints experienced by some LRT operators as well as the progress in applications of advanced control and communication technologies are also discussed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486622</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SENSITIVITY OF HUDSON-BERGEN LIGHT-RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM MODEL FORECASTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486623</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Travel demand modeling and forecasting that were completed as part of the evaluation of a proposed light-rail transit (LRT) system in New Jersey's Hudson River waterfront area are described.  The modeling required a unique approach because of several characteristics of the study area.  The market for the proposed service includes those commuting into New York City from New Jersey as well as travelers within the waterfront area. This area has a complex mix of existing transit service, which the proposed LRT system would complement.  The travel demand models were developed initially as part of a New Jersey Department of Transportation project.  A residential choice model was added to the conventional four-step process, and a nested logit-based mode and path model was developed.  The nested logit model estimates shares among existing and new modes, accounting for different levels of competition as observed among subsets of the modes.  The model system was used to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed LRT system.  In preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the model was refined, updated, and validated to 1990 conditions.  The mode-choice model was adapted to better reflect elements of travel behavior that were observed in focus groups and a stated-preference survey.  Data from a 1990 trans-Hudson survey were used to reestimate mode-choice coefficients using a specification suggested by the stated-preference surveys.  Forecasting experiments are shown to illustrate the overall sensitivity of model forecasts to policy variables and future scenarios.  Estimates of the ranges in forecasts that result from sampling error in the choice model estimation process are given.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486623</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NETWORKWIDE APPROACH TO OPTIMAL SIGNAL TIMING FOR INTEGRATED TRANSIT VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486624</link>
      <description><![CDATA[An intermodal networkwide strategy is presented for the determination of optimal traffic signal timings in locations such as reserved transit malls in central business districts where light-rail transit (LRT) vehicles are subject to the same traffic controls as motor vehicles.  The determination of optimal signal timings is crucial for public transit since delay at signals contributes significantly to passenger dissatisfaction with the system.  Some jurisdictions have little or no coordination of traffic signals with LRT movements, whereas others use some priority systems, often signal preemption, that can seriously disrupt the flow of other traffic at intersections.  The strategy considered here is unique because it is both integrated and networkwide, thereby balancing the needs of public transit with those of private vehicles. Traffic and LRT, including all intersections and stations, are treated as one intermodal system for which traffic signal timings are optimized to minimize delay and maximize throughput. The methodology is based on a neural network that determines, in real time, the parameters that control the traffic signal timings.  It extends a previously developed methodology, a fundamentally new approach to signal timings for motor vehicular traffic, to the integrated LRT and traffic network.  The approach is illustrated by a prototype simulation of part of the Baltimore central business district.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486624</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>APPLICATION OF LIGHT-RAIL TRANSIT FLEXIBILITY: DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT EXPERIENCE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486625</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The planning, design, and construction of a light-rail transit (LRT) line require that a wide range of complex issues be resolved.  Although no one mode of transit can serve as the best alternative for every corridor, light rail has significant advantages in many applications.  A unique feature of LRT is its flexibility, versatility, and ability to develop incrementally. It can be adapted to a wide variety of geographic and topographic conditions, financial capabilities, rights-of-way, and existing infrastructure.  In addition, this flexibility can have a direct impact on the design of light-rail stations and the vehicle to be operated on the system.  The Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) initial three line operating environments are described.  DART's application and implementation of LRT technology in a variety of complex operating environments are summarized, and the paper concludes with a status report on the light-rail starter system construction program.  Almost every segment of the 32.2-km (20-mi), 21-station starter system presents a different situation, ranging from on-street to grade separated conditions.  The starter system includes a new Trinity River Bridge, grade separations, aerial alignments, a subway, a central business district mall, joint use of a utility corridor, median running, and standard railroad environments.  This flexibility has also been incorporated into the specifications for the light-rail vehicles and the stations that will be served.  Revenue service is expected to begin in June 1996.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486625</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EVALUATING EFFICIENCY OF TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES IN GRIFFIN LINE CORRIDOR, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486626</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Greater Hartford Transit District, in cooperation with the Capitol Region Council of Governments, has completed the Griffin Line Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS), which is an extensive evaluation of the Griffin Line Transit and Economic Development Project.  The project considers five different transit alternatives to improve transportation and economic development conditions in the corridor.  In conformance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance, the evaluation of alternatives considers the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of an investment in each of the five alternatives.  The efficiency evaluation of each of the alternatives considers the alternative's cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per trip and its operating efficiency in terms of operating costs per hour, mile, and passenger and its FTA cost-effectiveness index.  To ensure that the efficiency evaluation measures fully reflect the projected and potential benefits of each alternative, the Griffin Line Corridor MIS includes the concepts of "new service trip" and "bus-equivalent" hours and miles.  Furthermore, a critical element of the evaluation of alternatives in the Griffin Line Corridor is the analysis of the cumulative impacts of alternative transit supportive policies and alternative transit operating assumptions on the relative cost efficiency of the alternatives.  The cumulative impact analysis includes an Operating and Maintenance Cost Sensitivity Study, which is an examination of the impact of different levels of ridership (represented as percentage increases or decreases compared with the baseline ridership forecast) on the projected annual operating and maintenance costs for each alternative.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486626</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>APPLICATION OF SIMULATION AND ANIMATION TO ANALYZE LIGHT-RAIL TRANSIT OPERATIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486627</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Application of computer simulation and animation to analyze light-rail transit networks is described using a case study of the city of Calgary to investigate alternative alignment strategies.  Features of the microcomputer-based simulation method are also described.  The model includes an animation display that allows the planners to visually monitor a transit system in a laboratory setting.  Trajectory diagrams and level-of-service estimates are also available from the proposed simulation method.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486627</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PROGRESSION OR REGRESSION: CASE STUDY FOR COMMUTER RAIL IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486628</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Commuter rail, once a transit option in many cities, is currently experiencing a resurgence in popularity in this country.  A case in point is the Bay Area Rapid Transit District's (BART's) plan to return commuter rail to the East Bay Area.  BART is now considering a plan that will return commuter rail to the Bay area in the form of a 322-km (200-mi) regional commuter rail system in the East Bay Area.  This system would use existing rail infrastructure and provide service to five counties.  BART developed this program as a near-term and cost-effective transportation solution for relieving highway congestion and maximizing limited financial resources for new rail extensions in the Bay Area.  The BART Commuter Rail Program could begin service within 2 years after funding sources have been secured.  Short-term implementation is possible because the existing infrastructure and facilities can support service today.  The BART Commuter Rail Program would be coordinated with existing regional transit services and provide an integrated and coordinated regional transportation system.  Compared with other proposed rail transit and highway expansion projects in the region, the BART Commuter Rail Program is a cost-effective and efficient use of the region's financial and physical resources. In addition, the expected operating performance of the program is within the industry range of performance levels experienced by new-start commuter rail systems across the nation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486628</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>