<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>BUILDING LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT COMPATIBLE WITH "URBAN FORM" IN MISSION VALLEY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/485866</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The San Diego Light Rail Transit (LRT) system currently consists of 38.0 route miles (60.8 km): the South Line from Centre City to the International Border and the East Line from Bayside to the city of Santee.  In June 1996, the Old Town LRT Project will be completed, and begin operation.  The Metropolitan Transit Development Board's (MTDB's) newest LRT endeavor is to complete the Mission Valley West LRT Project from Old Town to San Diego Jack Murphy Stadium, 6.1 miles (9.8 km) by January 1998 for the Super Bowl.  The city of San Diego incorporated "Transit-Oriented" Development into the Mission Valley Community Plan in 1985 with a multiple-use plan, development intensities linked to the transportation system, the San Diego River, wetlands management plan, the pedestrian-oriented urban design. The City Council approved development agreements, with conditions for LRT right-of-way dedication and some capital costs by developers. Seven LRT stations (and two future stations) are woven into the existing and future land use in Mission Valley with three major elevated stations.  A major LRT and bus transit center is planned at a regional shopping center.  In fact, the stadium station is architecturally designed to blend with the stadium through a multi-level showcase experience.  The MTD Board of Directors and the San Diego City Council have adopted resolutions supporting the completion of the LRT project by Super Bowl 1998..  The $220 million budget is composed of various state funds, local sales tax, and developer contributions.  Two construction contracts were awarded in April 1995, and construction began in June 1995.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/485866</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SIMULATING RAIL OPERATIONS FOR THE PENN STATION CAPACITY AND UTILIZATION STUDY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486803</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The simulation of Penn Station, New York involved a complex array of dynamics that included both operational considerations as well as infrastructure limitations.  Today, Penn Station is used by three distinct railroads:  AMTRAK, Long Island Tail Road and New Jersey Transit.  To accurately simulate the operation of Penn Station, it was necessary to incorporate the operating philosophies of each tenant by defining the project limits from Newark, New Jersey through Penn Station, New York to Jamaica, New York.  This regional rail network services nearly 300,000 commuters daily by funneling more than 800 trains per day into Penn Station via six underwater tunnels and a complex network of interlockings and signals.  However, the capacity of the station is limited and cannot currently handle the service increases planned by all three railroads over the next fifteen years. Therefore, it was necessary to test various scenarios of operational and structural modifications that could provide a means to achieve the proposed levels of service.  To accomplish this task, the project employed a three-phase approach.  Phase One tested the efficacy of the computer simulator and established baseline values by simulating the current operating system for all three railroads.  Phase Two introduced the proposed operating plan increases for 1998.  With service increases planned for all three railroads, a new operating philosophy for the station had to be adopted and significant structural improvements had to be initiated.  Operationally, the station had to be viewed as part of a continuous system rather than a terminating point.  To do this effectively, peak period train dwells at the station were limited to minimum allowable values by moving Long Island Rail Road trains from station platforms directly to one of the thirty storage tracks located three blocks west of Penn Station in Manhattan's West Side Storage Yard.  At the yard, Long Island Rail Road trains were prepared for eastbound departures and returned to the station. However, without modifying the existing infrastructure, access to the West Side Storage Yard was limited.  Therefore, Phase Two also introduced a set of track layout alternatives for the complex interlocking located immediately west of the station platforms to improve access between Penn Stations, New York and the West Side Storage Yard.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486803</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CONTRACTING PRACTICES INTERNATIONAL RAIL PROGRAMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486804</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In developing regions of the world, population growth in cities coupled with higher incomes is spurring the demand for rail based transportation to move goods and people.  Congestion at street level in dense urban centers had directed planners and builders of transportation system to focus on high capacity rail systems, as the way to augment the crowded street and highway systems.  Currently, throughout the world, there are many major rail programs being developed to provide fast and reliable transportation for dense urban centers.  This paper examines the methods used for contracting for major rail investments internationally.  Typically, international rail authorities and municipalities are responsible for building and operating rail transit systems, very similar to U.S. practice.  However, the methods of contracting are generally different than methods used in conventional U.S. practice.  As an example, design/construct is the norm internationally while in the U.S., the design/construct method is just now gaining momentum in the public works industry.  Terms and conditions relating to risk management are also different in international contracts in developing countries.  Many international rail programs have utilized grants and concessions to help finance the programs. Almost all of the grant and concession contracts have involved European or Japanese countries with well developed transit industries and a tight government/industry relationship which fosters export of the transit expertise.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486804</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PROCUREMENT METHODOLOGIES APPLICABLE TO COMPLEX CONTRACTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486805</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The traditional method for competitively selecting a contractor for transit equipment and construction procurement has been by competitive bidding, as is often prescribed by law or regulation.  The single-step competitive bid approach was developed for and has proven very successful for construction projects in response to detailed plans and specifications where responsive bids by responsible bidders can be said to equal except for price.  Over the past 20 years, transit projects have become more complex, with a number of factors beside price and bidder responsibility and responsiveness becoming increasingly more important and difficult to evaluate.  To meet these challenges, improved procurement methodologies have been developed for single- and two-step competitive bidding and competitive negotiated procurement.  The following paper provides a perspective and comparison between the single- and two-step competitive bidding and competitive negotiated procurement approaches for procuring transit equipment and complex design/construction of fixed-guideway transit systems. These three procurement methodologies are illustrated, based upon recent procurements, and discussed against the needs of categories of transit system and equipment projects.  Insights for selecting the appropriate procurement methodology is provided.  The paper may prove informative and useful in justifying changes in local and state legislation and/or regulations to permit two-step competitive bidding and competitive negotiated procurement.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486805</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AN INNOVATIVE PROCUREMENT STRATEGY: CREATION OF THE ADVANCED TRANSIT PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IN LOS ANGELES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486806</link>
      <description><![CDATA[On January 22, 1992, the LA County MTA (then, a combination of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission and the Regional Transit District) terminated its contract with the Sumitomo Corporation to build 41 fully automated, driverless light rail vehicles for the Los Angeles Green Line.  Sumitomo had been granted Notice to Proceed (NTP) only twelve (12) days previously.  The procurement had totally collapsed.  Although there were a number of reasons for the contract termination, the primary reason was the public outcry over awarding a contract to a Japanese carbuilder when jobs were needed in Los Angeles, most notably in the aerospace and defense sector.  The MTA Board was faced with a problem of enormous complexity:  not only did it have to justify both the award and termination of a multimillion dollar rail vehicle contract in the timeframe of only 12 days, but it had to move forward and renew the entire procurement process.  Compounding the problem, it had to insure the procurement of well-built, reliable transit cars, yet somehow involve the local aerospace and defense communities--industries with little or no transit experience.  The fascinating story of how the MTA Board overcame both political and journalistic adversity and how LA-based aerospace and defense contractors were brought into mix, will be the focus of this paper.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486806</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>OPTIMUM BLOCK LAYOUT USING COMPUTER-BASED MODELS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486807</link>
      <description><![CDATA[During the layout of track blocks in a fixed block signaling system, it has always been difficult for the designer to find the optimum balance between safety, headway performance and system implementation requirements.  This is especially true for rapid transit systems - which are characterized by guideways having frequent changes in grade and permissible velocity as well as tight headway constraints.  This paper describes an iterative approach to this optimization problem, using special computer-based simulation modelling tools to minimize the effort required.  The chosen approach does not attempt to have the computer perform the actual optimization decisions.  Instead, the computer-based tools display various block layout calculations to the designer in a format that allows easy interpretation of the results and quick "turnarounds" when modifications are made.  Once an acceptable block layout has been designed, a computer-based simulation is performed to determine the resulting minimum headway.  This technique allows designers to produce block designs quickly.  Complete block layout design times of two days have been achieved in some proposals.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486807</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HUDSON BERGEN LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM ORGANIZATION AND PROCUREMENT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486808</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper discusses the organization and procurement process for the Hudson Bergen Light Rail Transit System.  The procurement is for a Design, Build, Operate and Maintain contract (DBOM) with an O&M phase of 15 years.  The DBOM concept will also provide a bridge loan.  Under the DBOM concept the initial operating system will go into revenue service 6 years sooner than conventional pay as you go with the same cash flow. The project is being implemented using a team approach, where NJTRANSIT (NJT) staff, consultant staff, and other agency staff work together under the project director.  The composition and size of the team varies by phase of the project.  The procurement is a two step price and other factors with no negotiations.  An extensive outreach program was used to stimulate interest in the project and lead to teambuilding before formal procurement began.  Once the procurement process began a significant communications effort was undertaken to lead a "meeting of the minds" between NJT and the proposers. Communications were via working groups, general presentations, iterative exception and response process, and detailed comments based on review of the initial proposal.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486808</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ELECTRONIC MAINTENANCE DOCUMENTATION AND PARTS CATALOG</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486809</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This "Electronic Maintenance Documentation and Parts Catalogs" paper addresses the solutions for distributing up-to-date maintenance documentation to appropriate maintenance and storeroom personnel on a timely, consistent basis.  Technology today now accommodates the rail car manufacturer or OEM to produce that documentation in "electronic media" format (in addition to the traditional "paper" document) thereby facilitating this need.  But when a transit property issues a rail car bid that requests a response to include "electronic-formatted" maintenance documentation and parts catalogs, what are the actual electronic format specifications the rail car manufacturer must respond to?  What are the issues surrounding the description of that "electronic format" specification?  How does the property get the "older" already issued paper documentation into a format consistent with the newer issued "electronic format" maintenance documentation?  A standardized, "electronic format" specification is key to identify to the rail car manufacturer or OEM exactly what the transit property needs.  But before the property specifies the "electronic format" for the maintenance documentation, they must first analyze what the delivery system (application software) is that will "use" that electronic media" in word processing applications? CAD applications? parts catalog look-up? maintenance documentation retrieval systems?  If so, what electronic formats are compatible with those systems?  These questions must be answered in detail before "electronic format" standards can be formulated by the property.  "Electronic media" exchange standards for "electronic Parts Catalogs" for the rail industry are now available, published by the Rail Industry Forum of the National Association of Purchasing Management.  The recommendation is for all future rail car bids that go out to contain these standardized specifications.  By specifying the standards today, the transit property will save time and money in implementing a future "Electronic Maintenance Documentation and Parts Catalog" system.  This paper discusses the problems, issues, and solutions in formulating the standard for maintenance documentation electronic media formats.  It also addresses the benefits of implementing an Electronic Maintenance Documentation System, which include increased maintenance productivity and decreased maintenance and inventory costs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486809</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>DEVELOPING STANDARDS FOR SYSTEM AND SUBSYSTEM INTERFACES IN ELECTRIC RAIL PASSENGER VEHICLES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486810</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) is sponsoring a two year project which will implement a process for developing consensus standards (physical, logical and electrical) for system and subsystem interfaces for elements of electric rail passenger vehicles (light rail, heavy rail and commuter rail vehicles).  Using the process, one or more standards will be produced.  The TCRP contract has been awarded to Thomas J. McGean, P.E., an engineering firm with 20 years experience in high technology transit.  The team also includes LTK Engineering Services, specialists in rail vehicle procurement and specifications for over 75 years, Linda Sue Boehmer, president of the IEEE Vehicular Technology Society, and Tom Sullivan, formerly director of the New Technology Signal Systems program for New York City transit and now with PB Transit & Rail Systems.  This paper identifies major issues and constraints which will have to be dealt with in this standardization effort, describes the approach which will be taken to establish an ongoing rail standardization activity under the aegis of the IEEE, and provides a status report on committee activities to date.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486810</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>VEHICULAR RIDE COMFORT ENHANCEMENTS THROUGH NEW TEST EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486811</link>
      <description><![CDATA[An increasing focus for transport authorities is the area of passenger comfort as it relates to noise, vibration control, and ride quality.  Vehicle manufacturers have responded by improving their understanding of analysis, testing, and subsequent application of materials to properly evaluate various sound and vibration modes.  In recent years, noise and vibration testing technology has been developed and simplified for extensive analysis of noise sources, transmission paths, and noise barrier techniques by using a personal computer.  Manufacturers have taken advantage of these techniques to provide new vehicle and propulsion designs, as well as to improve existing vehicle configurations.  Ultimately, this goal is to improve the perception of passenger ride comfort and assure improved component service life.  The most useful test instrument to determine noise sources and vibration transmission paths is the FFT analyzer.  The instrument provides accurate frequency spectra of individual sounds where dominant noise and vibration sources and their characteristics can be illustrated in simplified graphs.  The most informative is the three dimensional graph showing noise level as a function of vehicle speed and the individual frequency components of each sound event.  In addition, the analysis technique is applied to vibrating vehicle bodies to develop an understanding of how components react when subjected to various oscillating inputs. For example, a floor construction can be tested for its natural frequency to determine whether a propulsion system may excite the floor under normal operating speeds and conditions.  This information can be obtained before any manufacturing begins, greatly reducing the long-term risk of redesign and resultant costs at a later assembly stage.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486811</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ROLLING STOCK MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486812</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Properly executed, the simulation of railroad operations can be a powerful tool for both operations and capital planning.  This is demonstrated by the operations analyses which has recently been performed for the MBTA by simulating their network of commuter rail service.  These analyses have included the study of a rail link tunnel and other related planned operations.  The commuter rail network of the MBTA in the Boston area has been growing in recent years.  The commuter rail system is currently divided into two halves which provide expansive service to the north and west from North Station and to the south and west from South Station.  Recent analyses have considered joining these two halves with a tunnel beneath downtown Boston.  The rail tunnel would provide run-through operations linking South and North Stations.  In order to properly analyze the potential North-South Rail Link tunnel, several operations simulations were performed.  A simulation of the tunnel alternatives and its related MBTA network was undertaken using LSTS' RAILSIM railroad simulation software package.  The use of RAILSIM involves coding nine databases with real-world railway information.  The results of the simulations were images on the screen which showed train movement with the appropriate track plant and signal system coordinated with accelerated simulation time.   The first step in simulation was the calibration of the Base Case scenario. The MBTA system was coded with the appropriate attributes and to the proscribed limits.  The Base Case was tested using two calibration exercises to demonstrate its accurate representation of the MBTA railway operation.  In the initial stage of the Rail Link study, the simulation was used to perform a hypothetical test of a future generation of locomotive that may likely be used by the MBTA.  This simulation furnished planners with potential decreases in run times which enabled them to predict ridership increases for the year of tunnel operations.  As a result, the future schedule volume for the tunnel could then be determined for different tunnel alternatives.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486812</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NJ TRANSIT'S DESIGN BUILD OPERATE MAINTAIN (DBOM) PROCUREMENT OF THE HUDSON BERGEN LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486813</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Hudson Bergen Light Rail Transit System (HBLRTS) Design Build Operate Maintain (DBOM) procurement provides an interesting look at an innovative procurement method designed to speed up the delivery of major capital projects.  The DBOM approach holds great interest for procurement professionals and others involved in the project delivery process.  It incorporates new ways of allocating risks and control, it leverages private sector efficiencies and it expedites delivery of the project.  Most of all, it reflects the strategic role procurement methodologies play in the development and operation of transportation systems.  Political and governmental consensus for transit projects is a precious and sometimes fragile thing. Procurement methods which accelerate the delivery of new and improved transit projects can help determine whether those projects are ever built.  NJ Transit's HBLRTS DBOM project provides one example of how these procurements can be conducted. This paper details some of the practical problems involved in procuring a project of this magnitude under a single contract and attempts to offer some insights into the DBOM approach in general.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486813</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>LOW RESISTANT TRACK: A PROVEN ALTERNATIVE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486814</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Frankford Elevated reconstruction of the superstructure and track system will be complete this spring after eight years. During this period the five mile long elevated transit system has operated on all but one rush hour, providing weekday commuter service to over 100,000 residents of Northeast Philadelphia.  The old, deteriorated structure and ballasted track system have been replaced with new precast deck sections and direct fixation track supported on new steel stringers.  One of the unique design innovations used to make this project economically viable was the reuse of the existing foundations and slender columns which support the El.  Analysis of the rail/structure interaction indicated that a conventionally anchored direct fixation track system using high restraint fasteners would create unacceptable levels of stress in the rail and substructure.  To resolve this issue, designers used a combination of low restraint track fasteners and rail expansion joints to eliminate thermal forces in the rails, and resultant risk of a rail break.  Additionally, structural modifications were made to provide points for traction bracing.  At these locations high restraint fasteners and traction frames were designed to transmit traction and braking forces from the trains directly to the foundations.  The first section of this track and structure were installed in 1988.  Since then 5-1/4 miles of track have been completed using this system.  recent track study and measurement of rail movements indicate the structure is working as designed with minimal maintenance.  This approach to aerial track design has the potential to save millions of dollars on other newly designed or rehabilitated transit system projects, as it has done here on the Frankford Elevated reconstruction Project for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486814</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THYRISTOR CONTROLLED TRACTION POWER SUBSTATION DESIGN FOR DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486792</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) chose to utilize the advantages of thyristor controlled rectifiers (TCR) on their new starter system, which covers twenty-one (21) miles of service area serving twenty-one (21) passenger stations.  System studies indicated that fourteen (14) main line Traction Power Substations (TPS) were required utilizing thyristor controlled rectifiers and nineteen (19) stations using diode supplies. This fact alone was a major contributor to their decision.  The calculated cost savings was shown to be $3.2 million.  This savings did not include future reduced maintenance cost or energy management savings.  They physical construction of the TPS was designed to accommodate the intelligence and safety features of the thyristor controlled rectifier.  This includes personnel positioning during startup and power diagnostics prior to energization.  The inherent advantages of the TCR come from its ability to control voltage, current and, therefore, power. The voltage control allows increased spacing of substations, which reduces capital costs.  These cost savings include value of the TPS, real estate, construction and maintenance.  The ability to control current reduces fault levels to 300% of full load and allows the use of heavy duty traction rating instead of extra heavy duty traction since the 450% load will never be reached.  The ability to control power allows an effective energy management system (EMS), which monitors the utility kilowatt hour (KWH) usage and distributes power between TPS stations to produce the most economical consumption of power based on the utility contract, which dictates penalties on levels of KWH demand.  Some of the main user concerns in using thyristor rectifiers compared with diode rectifier systems are :  (1) Power Factor, (2) AC Current Harmonics, (3) DC Ripple Voltage.  To meet these concerns, the power supply was designed to meet the specification requirement for a power factor greater than 0.9 over the normal operating range.  To have a "standard" for specifying AC current harmonics and DC ripple voltage, an equivalent 6-pulse diode rectifier system is used.  The ideas being that the thyristor system should be equal to or better than a 6-pulse diode rectifier.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486792</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EXPERIENCES WITH A PARTNERSHIP PHILOSOPHY IN EXPLOITING THE BENEFITS OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY SIGNALING ON EXISTING TRANSIT SYSTEMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/486793</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Exploiting the operational and life cycle cost benefits offered by advanced technology, communications-based signaling systems is not simply an engineering issue.  Implementing new technology on an existing transit system inevitably requires a willingness to introduce changes not only to the signaling equipment itself but also to the procedures and the organizations for specifying, designing, supplying, operating and maintaining the equipment. For an existing transit authority, many departments will be impacted by the introduction of advanced technology signaling and as a consequence must be intimately involved in the development of the system requirements and in the design review and approval process.  The design of a new signaling or automatic train control system must be based on a thorough understanding of the existing and future operational needs of the transit system.  The design must be fully integrated with both the existing facilities and related operating equipment, as well as other planned system modifications or additions that can impact, or be impacted by, the new signaling system design. Existing operating policies and practices must also be carefully evaluated so than any necessary changes can be identified and implemented.  In addition, the capabilities and limitations of the new communications-based train control systems currently being offered or developed by the supply industry must be fully understood. Difficulties that have been experienced in the past in implementing advanced technology systems can typically be traced to misunderstandings in interpreting requirements or system capabilities, and failures in recognizing or managing the implementation risks.  A partnership philosophy between the transit operators, maintainers, engineers, consultants, suppliers and funding agencies, all working to a common project goal, is therefore increasingly seen as an essential step towards avoiding these difficulties.  A partnership approach is currently being adopted by a number of North American transit agencies implementing advanced technology signaling systems. These include New York City transit's (NYCT's) Canarsie Line Re-signaling project, the Toronto transit commission's (TTC's) program to evaluate and demonstrate communications-based train control systems, and the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) program to develop and test an Advanced Automatic Train Control (AATC) system.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/486793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>