Investigations of interactions between bus rapid transit and general traffic flows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Bus rapid transit (BRT) is a popular strategy to increase transit attraction because of its high‐capacity, comfortable service, and fast travel speed with the exclusive right‐of‐way. Various engineering designs of right‐of‐way and the violation enforcement influence interactions between BRT and general traffic flows. An empirical assessment framework is proposed to investigate traffic congestion and lane‐changing patterns at one typical bottleneck along a BRT corridor. The BRT bottleneck consists of bus lane, BRT station, video enforcement zone, and transit signal priority intersection. We analyze oblique cumulative vehicle counts and oblique cumulative lane‐changing maneuvers extracted from videos. The cumulative vehicle counts method widely applied in revealing queueing dynamics at freeway bottlenecks is extended to an urban BRT corridor. In the study site, we assume four lane‐changing patterns, three of which are verified by the empirical measurements. Investigations of interactions between buses and general traffic show that abnormal behaviors (such as lane violations and slow moving of the general traffic) induce 16% reduction in the saturation rate of general traffic and 17% increase in bus travel time. Further observations show that the BRT station and its induced increasing lane‐changing maneuvers increase the downstream queue discharge flows of general traffic. The empirical results also contribute to more efficient strategies of BRT planning and operations, such as alternative enforcement methods, various lane separation types, and optimized traffic operations. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".