Novel Design Method for Bus Approach Lanes with Bus Guidance and Priority Controls for Prioritizing Through and Left-Turn Buses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transit priority is a useful way of improving transit operations in urban networks. However, the through and left-turn buses are rarely prioritized simultaneously at isolated intersections in the existing studies. This paper presents a variable bus approach lane design with a bus guidance and priority control model, which can reduce the delay of both the through and left-turn buses. The variable bus approach lanes can be dynamically used for the through and left-turn buses during the various periods of a signal cycle by the integrated design of geometric layouts and signal timing. A detailed bus guidance and priority control optimization model is formulated to guide the buses entering the appropriate bus approach lanes, and it provides optimal signal priorities for buses. The effectiveness of the proposed method is validated by a case study and numerical experiments. The results show that, on average, the total passenger delay can be reduced by 5% for every 30 veh/h and 40 veh/h increase in the volume of through buses and left-turn buses, respectively. Moreover, a comparison between the proposed method and the conventional transit priority method reveals that significant improvements can be made in reducing delays using the proposed method even at intersections with high degree of the saturation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".