Modelling Disruption Duration for Toronto’s Subway System: An Empirical Investigation Using Lognormal Regression and Hazard Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most investigations of incident-related delay duration in the transportation context are restricted to highway traffic, with little attention given to delays due to transit service disruptions. Studies of transit-based delay duration are also considerably less comprehensive than their highway counterparts with respect to examining the effects of non-causal variables on the delay duration. However, delays due to incidents in public transit service can have serious consequences on the overall urban transportation system due to the pivotal and sensitive role of public transit. The ability to predict the durations of various types of transit system incidents is indispensable for better management and mitigation of service disruptions. This paper presents a detailed investigation on incident delay durations in Toronto’s subway system over the year 2013, focusing on the effects of the incident’s relative location and time, the train-type involved, and the non-adherence to proper recovery procedures. Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) Hazard models and Lognormal regression models are estimated to investigate the relationship between these factors and the resulting delay duration. The empirical investigation reveals that incident types that impact both safety and operations simultaneously generally have longer expected delays than incident types that impact either safety or operations alone. Incidents at interchange stations are cleared faster than incidents at non-interchange stations. Incidents during peak periods have nearly the same delay durations as off-peak incidents. The estimated models are believed to be useful tools in predicting the magnitude of incident delay duration for better management of subway operations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".