MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069196087 · doi:10.3141/2417-04

Using Simulation to Analyze Crowd Congestion and Mitigation at Canadian Subway Interchanges

2014· article· en· W2069196087 on OpenAlexaffabout
David King, Siva Srikukenthiran, Amer Shalaby

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrainTransport engineeringSubway stationPedestrianScheduling (production processes)Arrival timeStatus quoTraffic congestionPublic transportRush hourComputer scienceEngineeringGeographyOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With year after year of record ridership and demand only expected to grow, transit infrastructure is under increasing pressure. Examining the impact of the scheduling and coordination of subway lines at interchange stations is critical to reduce crowd congestion at station facilities. There is, however, a gap in knowledge concerning how crowd congestion is affected by the arrival patterns of trains. The effects of arrival patterns are especially critical at interchange stations where several train lines converge. A simulation-based analysis was performed to fill this knowledge gap. Field data were collected at the Bloor-Yonge Toronto Transit Commission subway station in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, a station known to be operating at capacity during peak periods. For performance of the analysis, a model of the station was developed, calibrated, and validated in the pedestrian simulator MassMotion. The congestion duration that passengers experienced was examined by varying the passenger volume and the arrival pattern of the two independent train lines. Adjusting the train arrival pattern was found to cause as much as a 63% reduction in the congestion passengers experienced. Additional scenarios were proposed as improvements over the status quo and tested for their significance in regard to improvement in congestion time experienced.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207