Planning for Connected, Autonomous and Shared Mobility: A Synopsis of Practitioners’ Perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper contributes to a growing discussion on how communities plan to prepare for new mobility opportunities offered by technological innovations, specifically shared mobility services, electric vehicles, connected and autonomous vehicles, and Mobility as a Service. Literature in this field predominantly concentrates on technology and operation, market research and impact assessment. There is a clear gap in understanding how practitioners anticipate the planning considerations and research needs to prepare for the transformation of the transportation system. Taking a participatory approach, this research attempts to fill this gap through focus group sessions that capture the perspectives of practicing planners. The issues identified by the participants of this study include regulations/policy for emerging technologies, standardization of infrastructure design, rethinking land use planning, and foreseeing economic benefit and equity issues. This study reveals a set of planning considerations ranging from infrastructure provisions in the short-term to an adaptive approach in writing policy for the long-term. Given the uncertainty of newer technologies, the participants emphasized that practitioners need more information, such as the evolution of technologies, land use implications and design potentials.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it