Examining the Characteristics of Intercity Bus Passengers in Michigan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Michigan Department of Transportation (DOT) supports a state-wide network of intercity bus services, including five routes operated under the FTA Section 5311 (f) program. To assist with planning activities for the state's intercity bus network, the Michigan DOT conducted an onboard survey of intercity bus passengers in the state in spring 2011. The Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) was retained to analyze the 533 surveys obtained from this effort. This paper presents the results of the TTI analysis of the Michigan DOT spring 2011 intercity bus surveys. The survey results showed that three-quarters of the intercity bus passengers were from urban areas and the remaining one-quarter were from rural areas. Most passengers were traveling for personal reasons such as visits to family or friends or vacation. One-third of the surveyed passengers were from zero-vehicle households. If the bus service were not available, 59% of the passengers would drive, 19% would use an airplane, and 22% would not make the trip. Of zero-vehicle households, 31% of passengers would not make the trip; this result indicated a key role for the intercity bus service in supporting personal mobility. Other demographic groups that benefitted from the service included females and persons with annual household income less than $20,000; both groups had a higher propensity not to make the trip in the absence of the bus service. The findings from the survey suggested that the Michigan intercity bus network was a critical transportation option for residents and visitors in the state and that bus passenger onboard surveys provided valuable information to support planning efforts.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".