Development of Dynamic Transit Signal Priority Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transit signal priority (TSP) is a popular strategy used to enhance the performance of transit systems by modifying the signal control logic to give transit vehicles priority at signalized intersections. Conventional TSP strategies used in most cities have been shown to offer significant benefits by reducing delay of transit vehicles. However, concerns about shortcomings of conventional TSP strategies have limited their application. The main concern is a potential negative impact on cross street traffic. Another concern is the static nature of conventional TSP strategies and the lack of responsiveness to real-time traffic and transit conditions. A dynamic TSP control system has been developed that can provide signal priority in response to real-time traffic and transit conditions. The dynamic TSP system consists of three main components: a virtual detection system, a dynamic arrival prediction model, and a dynamic TSP algorithm. Two case studies are presented to test and compare the dynamic and the conventional TSP systems. A hypothetical intersection is simulated in the first case study, and a proposed light rail transit line is simulated in the second. For both case studies, a virtual detection system was developed in VISSIM, along with a linear travel time arrival prediction model. Finally, a dynamic TSP algorithm was developed to determine what TSP strategy to use and when to apply it. The results show that the dynamic TSP system reduced the total delay of transit vehicles and outperformed the conventional TSP system for reducing transit trip travel time.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".