MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392905986 · doi:10.32920/25418047.v1

Toronto's Future Rapid Transit Network: Evaluating Existing and Proposed Rapid Transit Services to a 2041 Forecast of Transit Needs and Transit Demands

2024· preprint· en· W4392905986 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yogesh Mandal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransit (satellite)Transport engineeringService (business)DowntownPublic transportBusinessPopulationGeographyEngineeringMedicineMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), Toronto’s transit service provider, currently has 3 lines of rapid transit service intended for continued operation, and 4 new rapid transit projects that are underway. This study is to determine if the existing and new lines of rapid transit ideally meet present and future demands, and to locate spatial mismatch between demand and transit placement if they do not. Select socio-economic groups are also examined for their transit needs. These groups are selected by definitions of youth, elderly, language, recent immigrants, migrants, renters, and unemployed. Population projections to 2041 were examined to assess future outcomes. Catchment areas were employed around rapid transit stations when gauging transit line services. This was followed with statistical and mapping outcomes. These methods helped determine where demand for rapid transit is being adequately met now, and in the future, and where it might not be. Results show that downtown remains the densest area of rapid transit users. The Ontario Line has the greatest outcome in this study to provide service to a densely populated part of the city. In spite of this, existing lines seem to be better situated to meet future demand than the future lines. Transit lines in the network prove themselves to serve their purposes and target areas with high need and demand for transit services. Existing and new lines will experience higher growth rates than the rest of the city. Most of the proposed lines are shown to be developed in areas identified as coldspots. Other high demand clusters in the city remain unaddressed by the network. Albeit, the proposed lines do go a long way to providing much needed rapid transit to parts of the city. Overall, the densification of riders will increase more rapidly along present rapid transit lines, followed by the new lines. This study also identifies some spatial mismatch with respect to present and future lines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→