Uses of Higher Capacity Buses in Transit Service
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This synthesis explores the use of higher capacity (HC) public transit buses in trunk, express, long-distance commuter, Bus Rapid Transit, and special (e.g., sports and special events) services in North America. For purposes of this study, HC buses included articulated, double-deck, 45-ft, and other buses that have a significant increase in passenger capacity compared with conventional 40-ft buses. This study examined where and how HC buses were being deployed in regular and flexible public transit services and experiences with these buses. It drew on available technical information from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA), HC bus manufacturers, and the Altoona (PA) Bus Testing Center in comparing HC buses with conventional buses with respect to a wide range of planning, operational, and maintenance issues. This synthesis is intended for an audience of transit agency general managers, their operations, planning, maintenance, and procurement staffs, as well as other transit professionals working with them in the deployment of HC buses. This synthesis contains information derived from survey data collected from selected transit agencies operating distinct HC bus fleets throughout the United States that provided information by e-mail, through telephone interviews, and by assisting in site visits. In addition, this synthesis contains a literature review and, in documenting transit agency surveys, it identifies a number of applications of HC buses. Ad hoc conversations with transit agency staff and experts on specific aspects of the synthesis are also reported, as are more specific findings in three U.S. and Canadian transit agency case studies.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it