Ridership estimation procedure for a transit corridor with new bus rapid transit service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Ridership estimation is a critical step in the planning of a new transit route or change in service. Very often, when a new transit route is introduced, the existing routes will be modified, vehicle capacities changed, or service headways adjusted. This has made ridership forecasts for the new, existing, and modified routes challenging. This paper proposes and demonstrates a procedure that forecasts the ridership of all transit routes along a corridor when a new bus rapid transit (BRT) service is introduced and existing regular bus services are adjusted. The procedure uses demographic data along the corridor, a recent origin–destination survey data, and new and existing transit service features as inputs. It consists of two stages of transit assignment. In the first stage, a transit assignment is performed with the existing transit demand on the proposed BRT and existing bus routes, so that adjustments to the existing bus services can be identified. This transit assignment is performed iteratively until there is no adjustment in transit services. In the second stage, the transit assignment is carried out with the new BRT and adjusted regular bus services, but incorporates a potential growth in ridership because of the new BRT service. The final outputs of the procedure are ridership for all routes and route segments, boarding and alighting volumes at all stops, and a stop‐by‐stop trip matrix. The proposed ridership estimation procedure is applicable to a new BRT route with and without competing regular bus routes and with BRT vehicles traveling in dedicated lanes or in mixed traffic. The application of the proposed procedure is demonstrated via a case study along the Alameda Corridor in El Paso, Texas. Copyright © 2015 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".