Impacts of long-term transit system disruptions and transitional periods on travelers: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Governments around the world are heavily investing in building new transit infrastructures and expanding existing ones. The construction of these projects does not happen overnight and can lead to extended long-term disruptions in the transit network, which can have undesirable impacts. Research regarding such disruptive periods, or transitional periods, seems to be thematically and geographically dispersed in the literature. Similarly, a consolidated understanding of the impacts of long-term transit service disruptions due to other causes, such as labor strikes and transit system failures, on travelers’ behavior seems missing from the literature. Using a systematic review method, this study aims at providing a comprehensive review of the academic literature that focused on analyzing the impacts of the aforementioned issues on transit users’ travel behavior and perceptions, while understanding the mitigation strategies applied to address these effects. Given the wide array of disruption types, durations, spatial coverage, and the modes affected, the review indicates a dearth of knowledge regarding their impacts along with a very limited understanding of the relative benefits of mitigation strategies. The most common impacts are mode changes. Some evidence, which is rather limited, shows that transit users did return to their previous travel behavior after the end of long-term service disruptions. The study offers a better understanding of the relative impacts of transit systems’ long-term disruptions and transitional periods, while highlighting important gaps in the current literature.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".