Empirical Performance Analysis of Bus Speed and Delay at Intersections for Emerging Spot Improvement Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many North American cities are increasingly interested in implementing small-scale localized spot treatments to surface routes as a simpler approach than top-down, disruptive route change, or redesign. This research seeks to support the identification of effective spot treatments at intersections using a systematic, data-driven approach. By analyzing key bus performance indicators in Toronto, this study developed insights into factors affecting peak-period bus speeds and delays at the segment and intersection levels for a wide variety of route and intersection configurations across eight high-frequency routes. Candidate treatments were then identified to improve bus performance. Data were sourced from the automatic vehicle location system, general transit feed specification, and a specialized ride check and GPS survey. Features of the approaches of 100 signalized intersections along the study routes were analyzed using K-means clustering, ordinary least squares regression, and regression trees, with target variables as their morning and evening peak operating speeds, segment-level delays, and signal delays. The results showed that long signal split is a significant contributor to higher operating speeds and lower delays, suggesting signal timing adjustments are an effective treatment. Clustering analysis suggested turning restrictions, particularly for right turns at intersections with near-side stops, could be effective, since turning volumes of similarly configured intersections were lower at locations with better transit performance. Regression analyses showed that queue jump lanes are an effective treatment if signal timing plans cannot be adjusted. The results from this study are intended to assist in informing transit authorities wishing to implement future spot improvement programs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".