Assessing the Bus Bridging Effectiveness on the Operational Resilience of the Subway Service in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unplanned rail disruptions result in substantial delays to passengers and severe effects on the economy of a large city like Toronto. While bus bridging has been a widely adopted method to replace the subway service in such events, its effect on the operational resilience of the subway service is less often studied. This study assesses the resilience of the subway network of Toronto employing an optimal bus bridging strategy. First, subway incidents are categorized based on their characteristics using K-mean clustering analysis. The incidents are then grouped based on the performance of optimal bus bridging plans. Classification and regression tree analysis is used for this task, employing two metrics: the total user delay and total number of shuttle buses under the optimal bridging scenario. Queueing and optimization models developed previously by the University of Toronto are used to determine and simulate the optimal bus bridging plans of a sample of incidents. The severity of unplanned disruptions is finally demonstrated using a severity scale and the effect of incident duration uncertainty is analyzed. The results show that along the congested city alignments, where the capacity of the roads and stations is limited, the bus bridging service is often insufficient to replace the train service. However, it could be a good alternative in uncongested subway segments where the available street capacity is relatively high, allowing large bus volumes to serve the corridor. This model is easily applicable to different rail systems and it could assess other systems to produce better bridging plans.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".