Ottawa-Gatineau: bus rapid transit and metropolitan planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ottawa’s Transitway is one of the earliest implementations of a bus rapid transit (BRT), and for many a highly successful one. But for others, this system has not been as positive as it should have been, even though it was clearly an improvement over a regular bus system, comparable to what a light rail transit (LRT) could offer. It has been criticized for its exaggerated costs and for having an impact not as great as it should have been on ridership. The BRT can sometimes be viewed as an interim technology, a pre-LRT, while waiting for the conditions to implement an LRT are met. But the BRT was not, and is not, a transitional solution in Ottawa or in many other cities, even though Ottawa has also developed an LRT and is now building a metro downtown. The BRT is a solution well adapted to certain urban contexts, especially mid-densities and moderate ridership. It is well adapted to certain corridors, even in larger metropolises. Other technologies are necessary to face the demand for transit and because of the limits of BRT. Clearly there is a future for BRT in Ottawa and on the other side of the river, in Gatineau, if only because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to develop an extensive network of LRT, even on the Ontario side of the region. The capital costs are too high, and LRT is not adapted to all corridors that need a rapid and frequent service. The BRT is still an alternative in the long run. Therefore, the BRT will most probably coexist with other transit technologies. In that sense, the BRT will be more than an interim solution, waiting for an LRT. It is still a valid solution for Ottawa and for Gatineau.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.149 | 0.034 |
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".