Modeling transit technology selection in a linear transportation corridor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper proposes an analytical model for investigating transit technology selection problem from a perspective of transit authority. Given a transit technology alternative (e.g., metro, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit), the proposed model aims to maximize the social welfare of the transit system by determining the optimal combination of transit line length, number of stations, station location (or spacing), headway, and fare. In the proposed model, the effects of passenger demand elasticity and capacity constraint are explicitly considered. The properties of the model are examined analytically, and a heuristic solution procedure for determining the model solution is presented. By comparing the optimized social welfare for different transit technology alternatives, the optimal transit technology solution can be obtained together with critical population density. On the basis of a simple population growth rate formula, optimal investment timing of a new transit technology can be estimated. The proposed methodology is illustrated in several Chinese cities. Insightful findings are reported on the interrelation among transit technology selection, population density, transit investment cost, and transit line parameter design as well as the comparison between social welfare maximization and profit maximization regimes. 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".