Effects of regulation changes in seoul bus system: private bus operation under non‐competitive fixed price contract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of crucial measures introduced under Seoul Public Transport Reforms 2004 was the regulatory framework change of intra‐urban bus from the poorly regulated private operations with operating subsidy, towards the highly regulated one via fixed price contracts. The focus of this paper is placed on (1) addressing the challenges newly faced after Seoul Bus Reform 2004, and (2) proposing some strategies in order to ensure better bus operation overall the reforms was a success in many aspects, resulting in the increase of patronage of urban transit, the dramatic drop of bus accidents, and introducing exclusive median lanes. Unfortunately, the previously small, family‐owned, inefficient bus companies were transferred to monopoly franchises under the reforms, thus institutionalizing a non‐competitive supply situation. The exclusive operating right‐of‐way is still protected as a judicial precedent set by the Korean Supreme Court. The current non‐competitive bus contracts such as a sole‐source negotiation procurement must be modified into competitive tendering in the long run, and the major obstacles to this strategy and the detailed scheme are reviewed. Further, the short‐term strategies was proposed including (a) the development of more sophisticated standard cost model incorporating a route structure and/or the patronage change; (b) the introduction of yardstick regulation; and (c) extended incentives and penalties. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".