Integrating Passenger Ferry Service with Mass Transit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this synthesis was to document the state of the practice and integration between land- and water-based transit systems and to explore successful aspects of seamless integration. The report assembles and presents information in numerous locations around the United States, supplemented with examples from Canada, Australia, and Bermuda. To accomplish this effort a literature review was undertaken that received limited results. However, a selected survey of 46 respondents out of 57 transit and ferry agencies, as well as agencies and companies in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, including Bermuda, received an 80% response rate. The respondents represent a geographically representative sample—varying in size and age of system, degree of coordination between ferry and transit, and type of community served. The synthesis summarizes findings from 60 different ferry-to-land-based transit interfaces. Case examples of key factors of land- and water-based integration are offered for Long Wharf in Boston, Massachusetts, TransLink's SeaBus in Vancouver, British Columbia; New York Waterway's Hoboken Terminal; and Washington State Ferries and Kitsap Transit in Bremerton, Washington.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".