<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>OVERVIEW OF NAFTA'S TRANSPORTATION PROVISIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468235</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper discusses trade and the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) upon transportation.  It is noted that the U.S. will be a beneficiary in the automotive industry. The apparel industry will probably shift to Mexico.  Total jobs lost in the U.S. economy over eight years could be half a million.  However, most estimates expect a total net gain in jobs.  NAFTA should open Mexico's market for international transport.  U.S. firms can physically enter the Mexican market. They can set up international subsidiaries, wholly-owned new companies.  They can make equity investments in existing Mexican firms.  They can establish terminals, repair facilities, communications equipment, and other infrastructure.  NAFTA will open up access of American trucking firms to business in Mexico. Railroads and intermodal companies are going to be able to market their services directly to the Mexican shippers and consignees.  If a Mexican carrier wants U.S. operating authority or wants to haul loads in the U.S., he is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and all the other regulatory agencies.  They have to operate under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations in terms of smog.  Mexican carriers are going to have to modernize their fleet to ensure compliance with U.S. safety standards.  The infrastructure is inadequate in Mexico, and current estimates of cost of improvement run from $300 million to $450 billion.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468235</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IMPACT ON THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468236</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper focuses on the issues that are still outstanding, and that need to be addressed to get the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to really work in terms of railroads.  There are six or seven rail crossings on the U.S.- Mexico border.  One of the key crossings is served by the Union Pacific (UP) and the Tex-Mex Railroad.  The other key crossing is at Brownsville and Matamoros.  It is also served by UP, primarily, and by Southern Pacific (SP).  The SP is dominant at most of the rest of the crossing points.  An important region in NAFTA trade is called "The Triangle" - Monterrey, Guadalajara, and Mexico City are the corners.  Laredo, Texas is almost on a direct line to the Triangle from the U.S. heartland.  The majority of trade will come through Laredo.  There are terminal facilities in Mexico, and these terminal points are in some ways choke points.  The main concern of the U. S. railroads at the border is multiple agencies on both sides of the border.  The railroads would like a single binational agency instead of multiple agencies who don't necessarily agree on issues and policy.  The Ferrocarriles Nacionales de Mexico (FNM - the Mexican railroad) is government owned, and it needs locomotives.  In addition, they do not have a bulk transload facility there.  If you want to receive bulk, you need to be able to turn those trains.  They are really not able to do that in Mexico.  Due to infrastructure problems and institutional issues, the FNM can not clear the border fast enough.  An increase in FNM capacity would improve the situation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468236</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IMPACT ON WATERWAYS, PORTS, AND CANALS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468237</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper discusses the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on the maritime industry.  The author covers such topics as the stability of the Mexican government, the evaluation of deep-sea conventional services, coastal short sea services, feeder systems, water bridge services, the shift towards containerization, and the Laguna Madre issue as it relates to dredging.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468237</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IMPACT ON MOTOR CARRIERS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468238</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The author discusses the Trucking Industry Regulatory Reform Act (TIRRA) and elaborates on a number of points in the Act.  He also addresses Mexico's proposed new labeling law and briefly summarizes its content.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468238</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>INTERMODAL FREIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS: THE COLUMBUS CASE STUDY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468239</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) mandates that the private and public sectors work in partnership to integrate their freight transportation planning efforts. This paper describes a major freight study recently concluded in Columbus, Ohio entitled "Inland Port Infrastructure Improvement Study", which was undertaken as an integral part of a greater effort to encourage economic development through local emphasis on the effectiveness of regional, national, and international freight movements.  The main objective of the study was to enhance economic development in the Columbus area - to generate jobs and business by improving transportation, by making it a better location, by helping firms that are located in Columbus to be more competitive.  The study also focused on making Columbus more of a wholesale distribution center.  By improving transportation, Columbus becomes a better location for transportation dependent industries.  Further study objectives were to move freight economically, efficiently and reliably; to estimate future freight movements based on the growth of regional economy; and to recommend infrastructure improvements. Costs by industry were analyzed to determine the type of freight likely to be generated.  A doubling of the number of containers handled through intermodal terminals was projected.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468239</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468229</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The author discusses the operational issues he feels are responsible for the traffic congestion along the U.S.- Mexico border.  Obstacles include the freight forwarding system, the Mexican broker system, and the limited hours of operation of the Columbia Bridge.  According to the author, 75% of all business activity at the border is controlled by Mexican  customs brokers.  There is a clear monopoly of all land goods into Mexico, and individuals living in the United States are unable to compete.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468229</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PRIVATE SECTOR PERSPECTIVE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468230</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The author, Vice President for Mexico Operations at Union Pacific Railroad, discusses traffic congestion at the U.S.- Mexico border.  He feels that congestion does exist there, and that it is due to both inadequate infrastructure and inadequate policies.  The paper addresses some of the process changes and infrastructure investments that Union Pacific has made or plans to make in the future.  In 1991, they pioneered and expedited a customs clearing process for shipments into Mexico.  It is noted that additional infrastructure investments will be required in Mexico, and new locomotives need to be purchased.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468230</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NAFTA: CONTINUE INTERLINING OR OPERATE BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468231</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper introduces one of the sessions on the North American Free Trade Agreement at the TRF 36th Annual Conference.  The author notes that under the NAFTA transportation section, there are allowances for U.S. carriers to operate in the border states of Mexico and Mexican carriers to operate in the border states of the United States in the near future, an then later on, for U.S. carriers to go anywhere in Mexico and Mexican carriers to go anywhere in the United States.  That also applies to Canada. The United States and Canada, of course, have already been operating that way.  Mexico is very different, particularly because the language difference is very substantial.  In addition, the Mexican legal system and its enforcement is somewhat different than that in the United States.  For that reason, there is some question about what is going to happen to the rights that carriers will gain, and whether or not they'll exercise them.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468231</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>MEXICAN PERSPECTIVE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468232</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper discusses some options for U.S. motor carriers in Mexico, given the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) environment.  The author addresses the following questions. What can the motor carriers do now?  What might they do in the future? How likely is it that they will do any of these things in the future?  First the author describes access in Mexico, then the Mexican environment.  He addresses the question of whether or not Mexico has the capacity to handle U.S. carriers, and covers the essentials of interlining agreements.  Other items of discussion include the infrastructure in Mexico, Mexican fuel content and availability, interchangeability of spare parts, existence or lack of safe stopping areas along highways, legal issues and handling of traffic accidents in Mexico, Mexican accommodations, the inspection and documentation process, and the issue of pooling trailers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468232</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>U.S. PERSPECTIVE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468233</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper presents the current operations of Viking Freight, a less-than-truckload carrier operating on the West coast.  The representative from Viking notes that they are not operating in Mexico and do not plan on doing so in the future.  They are working with both interlines and agents, and will continue to do so.  The author describes how the company worked up to serving Eureka, when the interlines and agents could no longer accommodate their needs.  The main problem he foresees with Mexican trade is not the language, but the availability of data networks in Mexico.  They are currently nonexistent, though he expects this to change in the future.  He specifically needs TCP/IP networks and telephone network system data lines in order to fax shipment information to his customers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468233</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468234</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper discusses trade between Canada and Mexico.  About one third of the North American trade in 1992 was between the U.S. and Mexico, and two thirds of the trade was between Canada and the U.S.  One percent of the trade was between Mexico and Canada. 86% of the exports from Mexico to Canada are highly manufactured goods, with automotive parts, motor vehicles and electronic equipment leading the way.  Tomatoes are also exported from Mexico to Canada.  Canada's exports to Mexico follow a similar pattern - auto parts are predominant, and cereals, paper products and dairy products, and aircraft parts are also exported.  One of the big problems for Canadian carriers is that they can not get loads back from Mexico very easily.  The principle reason for that is that cargo that is moved across the border and cleared on the U.S. side of the border is deemed to be then U.S. freight.  So even though this freight might be moving from Mexico as international freight to some place in the interior of the U.S., the Canadian carriers are prohibited from taking it.  It is deemed as being domestic freight because it is cleared into the U.S. side of the border.  As a result, the Canadian carrier arrives at Laredo with a load.  The only loads he can take back with him are loads going all the way back to Canada due to the cabotage restrictions.  The U.S. carriers can also compete for those loads, because they can take loads to Canada.  That makes it very difficult for the Canadian carriers to find anything to take back.  The Canadian carriers will have to wait three more years before they will be able to pick up U.S.-destined loads on the Mexican side of the border that would give them a trip back north.  They are not very happy about this.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468234</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RAILROAD VIEWPOINT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468224</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The author, Vice President and General Counsel for the American Short Line Association, is an advocate for the railroad industry. She notes that 263 railroads have formed since 1980, mostly from spin-offs from the large Class I marginal or low-traffic lines. She states that it is the spinning off of these lines to new operators who can perform closer customer service, lower cost structure and more efficient operations that has been able to preserve infrastructure in this country -- preserve rail service to communities and localities that might have lost it otherwise. She describes the Staggers Rail Act that was passed in 1980, and notes that it was the contract provision in the Act that changed the way railroads do business. The author feels that workers in the railroad industry receive many benefits that other workers don't receive; and perhaps some of these benefits should be reconsidered.  Labor protection is costly, and the railroads no longer have a monopoly on shipping, as they did in the 1930s when the labor unions began.  She feels that employees are more widely trained today, and would have an easier time getting new jobs  - if they needed to - than they did in the 1930s.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468224</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT OF 1908: PAST TIME FOR A CHANGE?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468225</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908 (FELA) is an injury compensation system which was originated with legislation in 1908 at a point when the railroad industry was considerably more dangerous than it is now.  In order to get compensated under FELA, the worker has to demonstrate some negligence on the part of the employer.  It is a comparative negligence standard -- the compensation can be reduced in proportion to the worker's negligence.  The worker can seek compensation for pain and suffering, as well as for out-of-pocket expenses.  The Transportation Research Board (TRB) performed a study on FELA, comparing it to workman's compensation, and this paper reports on the conclusions that resulted from the study.   The TRB panel was specifically charged to make no recommendations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468225</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I.C.C. R.I.P. - HAS TRANSPORTATION REGULATION OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468226</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In the summer of 1995 the House and Senate tried to zero-fund the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) for fiscal year 1995. In a compromise to salvage something, the Congress only cut the budget of the ICC to a third.  In the meantime, many employees had been retired or left the agency for other reasons, and the staff size had gotten smaller.  In order to accommodate the ICC with a one-third budget, the Congress enacted the Trucking Industry Regulatory Reform Act (TIRRA) which largely did away with what was left of truck regulation by the ICC.  This paper discusses the continuing role of the ICC in transportation regulation. Some ideas presented include the establishment of a National Transportation Commission; and folding the ICC and Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) into the Department of Transportation (DOT).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468226</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>U.S.- MEXICO BORDER CONGESTION: INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE OR POLICY?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/468227</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper discusses the issue of whether or not border congestion exists at the U.S. - Mexican border.  It seeks to answer the following questions.  If congestion exists, how significant is it? Is this border congestion (if it exists) attributable to a lack of physical infrastructure or might it be due, in specific instances, to policies and procedures that the governments impose on border interchange?]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/468227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>