Bus Rapid Transit Institutional Issues: The Route from Research to Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The institutional aspects of bus rapid transit (BRT) are investigated through a macroscopic examination and a survey of members of FTA’s BRT Consortium and several Canadian transit properties. The macroscopic examination resulted from a literature review, project team brain-storming meetings, and input from FTA’s BRT staff. Several dozen issues were identified and grouped into nine categories that formed the basis of the survey—intergovernmental and interorganizational; intratransit property; political; public relations and marketing; funding and finance; labor; safety and liability; planning and land use; and the physical environment. Specific issues were identified that, overall, are both the most important and most difficult to resolve—local and business community opposition to the removal of, or restrictions on, parking spaces for use; availability and acquisition of right-of-way or physical space; integration of multiple priorities, objectives, and agendas; concerns over longterm funding commitments to BRT; BRT effects on roadway operations; finding political champions to support BRT; gaining community support for transit-oriented development; and educating the public about BRT and managing perceptions and expectations. Although a small set of opinions was obtained, the investigation and analysis of survey responses was based on the insight and expertise of individuals who have experienced these institutional issues. This study should offer guidance to anticipate future problems and develop strategies to resolve them.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".