MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406227130 · doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2024.12.077

A Comprehensive Analysis of the Impacts of Transit Driver Advisory Systems with Space Priority on the Corridor Performance

2025· article· en· W4406227130 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kareem Othman, Amer Shalaby, Baher Abdulhai

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation research procedia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsTransport engineeringTransit (satellite)Space (punctuation)Computer scienceBusinessPublic transportEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Connected vehicles open the way for offering new strategies that can prioritize transit vehicles without having adverse impacts on the general traffic. Driver advisory system (DAS) is one strategy that relies on vehicle-to-infrastructure communication to advise bus drivers with specific traveling speeds and dwell times that achieve specific objectives. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of different DAS algorithms on the performance of electric buses (e-buses) and the general traffic. Additionally, we examined two supporting space priority strategies to allow the buses to travel at the advised speeds. A simulation model for the Eglinton East corridor in Toronto, Canada was built using Aimsun Next in order to quantify the impacts of the DAS algorithms. The results show that DAS is a promising strategy that allows the buses to travel near the maximum possible speed with 25% to 55% reduction in the total number of stops, 20% to 55% higher levels of comfort, and 10% to 20% reduction in the bus energy consumption rates. Additionally, the DAS can improve the headway regularity, improving the level of service (LOS) from LOS F to LOS C when the headway regularity was added to the objectives of the DAS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation research procediaSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207