Toplu taşıma hizmetlerinde entegrasyon: İstanbul örneği.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
One of the most important policy and action areas in urban transport planning is the improvement of public transport with a view to increase its usage. Public transport is the most effective way of meeting increasing mobility needs in urban areas. It can provide long-distance journeys that may be difficult to travel via walking and biking. In the face of increasing car usage, it also ensures the most efficient use of space (i.e. transport infrastructure) and hence can help relieve congestion, which is a consequence of increased car usage. Transporting people with public transport, as opposed to cars, also results in lower levels of energy consumption and emissions; and consequently public transport also plays an important role in climate action plans and in achieving such policies as environmentally-friendly, clean, green, energy-efficient, and lower-cost (in terms of space and energy consumption) urban transport systems. Public transport is also a means of providing equal access opportunities to the society, since not everyone can be expected to travel with the car. As a result, for environmentally, economically and socially sustainable urban transport systems, public transport is a fundamental component. Public transport often constitutes a variety of different systems and services; and policies to improve public transport systems bring along a multi-modal system, which consists of various different public transport modes. This improvement also brings along the need for integrated systems. Public transport integration is both a necessity and a key for attracting travelers. Public transport integration has various levels and perspectives that are line/route integration, tariff/ticketing integration, information integration and schedule/headway integration. Integration criteria that are examined in the study are based on literature and three best practice cases from the world. These cases are Singapore, London and Toronto. As a case study, this study assesses public transportation integration in Istanbul, Turkey. Istanbul has a diversity of transit modes, high daily passenger numbers, high population and a high level of mobility. Moreover, maritime transport and diversity of rail transportation (metro, tramway, funicular, streetcar, Marmaray etc.) make Istanbul a good case to investigate the integration of public transportation to compare it with good practice cases. Five transfer stations (Şişli-Mecidiyeköy, Zeytinburnu, Yenikapı, Aksaray-Yusufpaşa, Kadıköy) in Istanbul are investigated in-depth in terms of public transport integration. The aim of the study is to present Istanbul’s situation regarding public transport integration. By doing so, both inadequacies/weaknesses and potentials/possibilities to achieve an integrated public transport system in Istanbul could be investigated and assessed. The findings of the study enlighten the framework of an integrated public transport system, but by taking the locality into account. The study investigates integration components specific to Istanbul and also some transfer stations in Istanbul are analyzed in depth. The study can provide recommendations for future system map, information tools, fare policies and schedule arrangements as well as for achieving the whole system integration.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,004 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».