Preliminary economic appraisal of personal rapid transit (PRT) and urban gondola feeder systems serving a university campus and its surrounding major attractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".