MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098967912 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2013-0313

Preliminary economic appraisal of personal rapid transit (PRT) and urban gondola feeder systems serving a university campus and its surrounding major attractions

2014· article· en· W2098967912 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Shahram Tahmasseby, Lina Kattan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsTransport engineeringVisSimCapital costMicrosimulationReliability (semiconductor)Transit (satellite)ExternalityEngineeringPublic transportEnvironmental economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personal rapid transit (PRT) and urban gondolas are two types of driverless transit vehicles that are increasingly attracting attention as viable mass transit alternatives in urban environments. Both systems are identified with high reliability of travel time, as they have their own right of way and, thus, do not interact with vehicular traffic. They are also associated with environmental benefits, resulting from their low emissions, energy use, and noise pollution. The objective of this study is the investigation of the potential economic viability of the implementation a PRT feeder line linking the University of Calgary to its surrounding major attraction centres, compared to that of two types of urban gondola systems. The main focus of the research is the examination of the thresholds and feasibility of these emerging urban transit systems relative to certain important inputs, such as capital costs, ridership levels, and modal shift from other modes. The VISSIM microsimulation tool was used to simulate the operation of these systems to replicate more closely the on-demand nature of PRT and to get better estimates of the operating speed, reliability, and passengers waiting, boarding and alighting times for both types of examined systems. The project efficiency was analyzed given the calculated economic cash flow for a certain period (e.g., 30 years). The results indicate that the three examined systems differed widely in terms of their capital cost, maintenance and operating cost, capacity, and their anticipated benefits.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207