Use of Automated Vehicle Location Data for Route- and Segment-Level Analyses of Bus Route Reliability and Speed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliability and speed are arguably the most important indicators of surface transit performance for both operators and passengers. They can be influenced by a variety of factors, including service characteristics of bus routes, physical infrastructure, signal settings, traffic conditions and ridership patterns. These factors have often been analyzed individually for their impact on transit reliability or speed. Studies considering more than one factor tend to use one or two transit routes to explore their effects. The study that is the subject of this paper proposed an evaluation framework to guide the selection of an appropriate reliability measure. Regression analysis was applied subsequently to determine the factors that exhibit a statistically significant relationship with transit reliability and speed at both the route and segment levels. Automated vehicle location data of a bus route sample that is representative of the entire bus network in the City of Toronto, Ontario, Canada were used. Features significantly associated with reliability and speed were compared. The results showed that lower transit reliability and speed are significantly associated with the increase in service distance, signalized intersection density, stop density, volume of boarding and alighting passengers, and traffic volume. By segregating bus route segments on the basis of the presence of transit signal priority, the results of the segment-level model demonstrated the beneficial impact of transit signal priority on improving transit reliability.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".