Bus rapid transit: theory and practice in the United States and abroad
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a relatively new mode with a wide range of applications that are still not well understood. Its explosive growth in developing and developed countries has increased its exposure but has led to mostly experimental implementation with mixed results. Therefore, better understanding about the reasons behind BRT implementation success and shortcomings is needed. The objective of this thesis is to evaluate the state of BRT planning under different contexts by assessing how background theory and practical implementation of BRT systems compare. The scope is limited to current a detailed evaluation of 13 case studies in the United States, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador chosen to represent some of the most succesful and established systems in the world. Data was obtaiend from previous research as well as direct reporting from agencies. The evaluation is performed through qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative methods classify BRT systems by characteristics and assess the relationship between their implementation and performance using the criteria defined in the literature. Quantitative methods build upon the previous analysis to more precisely assess their performance from both the users' and the transit providers' perspectives. This research found that BRT as a public transit mode has a large room of improvement in terms of design and implementation, since there is a significant variability in performance under similar conditions and a considerable gap between planning best practices and implementation. Also, that planning guidelines are still in an early stage of development and difer in scope and application to a particular context. It also found that its success is not conscribed to developing countries, but that its wide range of applications need to be better adapted to the context they should serve. The findings are significant because they dispel myths about the real potential of BRT and partially identify the reasons behind successes and failures of current systems, such as understimation of implementation times and lack of knowledge about component integration. Further research should approach these issues mainly in two complementary directions. First, it should focus on expanding the case study approach to the newer systems in operation once better data is available. Second,it should further advance the development of theoretical framwork for better operational design based on urban form, as well as an evaluation framework that puts more emphasis on user experience and sustainability. Finally, the findings reinforce that BRT is a distinct mode so that systems that do not meet its criteria should not be named as such.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».