Sustainability, Scalability, and Resiliency of the Town of Innisfil Mobility-on-Demand Experiment: Preliminary Results, Analyses, and Lessons Learned
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
In 2017, the town of Innisfil, Ontario, launched Innisfil Transit in partnership with Uber, a transportation network company, to provide a subsidized on-demand public mobility service as an alternative to investing in a new fixed-route bus service. The performance of Innisfil Transit is documented in a 2021 Ryerson University report by Sweet, Mitra, and Benaroya, which shows greater cost effectiveness of the mobility provided over the proposed bus alternative. This paper expands on those findings by assessing Innisfil Transit with respect to sustainability, scalability, and resiliency. First, we quantify the energy and emissions of this program relative to traditional transit and driving alone across varying powertrains. We then characterize a conservative first-order estimate of the percentage of US communities that fall within a similar spatial-demographic tier as Innisfil. Replicability also hinges on service cost and performance in comparison to average values for low-density transit in the US. Lastly, most transit agencies experienced a significant drop in demand (as much as 90%) with slowly rebounding ridership since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The resiliency of the Innisfil program to the pressures induced by the pandemic is examined in comparison to other transit operations. The lessons learned across these three dimensions complement prior work to better understand the efficiency and sustainability of on-demand public mobility service for low-density communities like Innisfil.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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